Part of:

Edition used:

John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIV - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part I, ed. Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972).
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/251

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

The Collected Edition of the works of John Stuart Mill has been planned and is being directed by an editorial committee appointed from the Faculty of Arts and Science of the University of Toronto, and from the University of Toronto Press. The primary aim of the edition is to present fully collated texts of those works which exist in a number of versions, both printed and manuscript, and to provide accurate texts of works previously unpublished or which have become relatively inaccessible.

This volume has been published with the assistance of a grant from the Canada Council

Edition: current; Page: [v]

TO FRIEDRICH A. VON HAYEK

Edition: current; Page: [vi]Edition: current; Page: [vii]

Preface

since the publication in 1963 of The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1812-1848, ed. Francis E. Mineka (Vols. XII and XIII of the Collected Works), we have been engaged in the much larger task of collecting and editing the letters of the last twenty-five years of Mill’s life. The earlier volumes contained 537 letters, about half of which had not been previously published; the present volumes contain over 1800, more than half hitherto unpublished. Most of the collecting for the earlier volumes was the work of Professor Friedrich A. von Hayek, begun during World War II; while the present volumes contain many letters also assembled by him, some of which can no longer be found, about half have been located within the past ten years by the senior editor. We have also included in Appendix I over sixty earlier letters which have come to light since 1963.

The rationale and the method of the present volumes are essentially the same as those of the earlier volumes. We have included all the personal letters we have found, but, with one exception (Letter 1292), have excluded letters expressly written for publication, which will appear in a later volume of the Collected Works. We have included, however, private letters printed by their recipients in various papers, usually without Mill’s permission. We have excluded, because of space, letters to Mill, but have indicated their location, and on occasion quoted relevant passages from them in footnotes. A relatively small number of what may seem to some readers inconsequential or insignificant letters are included, in the interest of completeness, and in the belief that details now thought insignificant may, in the light of further research, come into more meaningful focus.

To identify the “best text” of a letter is much easier than to find it. The best text is, of course, the original autograph letter. Next best is a manuscript draft; fortunately for his editors, Mill in later years, conscious that his letters might be of interest to a wider public, preserved drafts, often labelled “For Publication.” For many letters the drafts are the only surviving versions. We have printed these as drafts, without correcting abbreviations, punctuation, or usage, and without adding signatures. In both drafts and autograph letters Mill’s spelling has been retained (e.g. shew for show, stile for style, contemporary for contemporary, recal for recall); his infrequent errors in French have not been corrected; and his punctuation has only rarely been altered, when necessary for clarity of meaning. In a few instances we have had to assemble a letter from portions now located in different places; for example, Edition: current; Page: [viii] Letter 653, to W. T. Thornton, exists in three fragments in the libraries of King’s College, Cambridge, the University of Leeds, and the London School of Economics. When both the autograph letter and the draft have been located, we have, of course, based our transcript on the letter, but on the rare occasions when there are significant differences between the two we have indicated those differences in notes. Published versions have been used only when neither letter nor draft has been located. When no published version is indicated, the letter is, to the best of our knowledge, published here for the first time.

The first footnote to each letter provides the following information in this order: the location of manuscripts when known; addresses of correspondents and postmarks when available; and the place of publication of previously published letters.

A special problem arose over the real authorship of certain of the later letters. From 1865 on, the demands of public life greatly increased the amount of Mill’s correspondence, to such an extent that he could not have carried it on without help. That help was provided by his step-daughter, Helen Taylor. A number of the extant drafts are in her hand, written from his dictation; some are in his hand, written from her dictation. Some were composed in whole or part by her and signed by him. Mill, in notes attached to the drafts, often indicated the extent of Helen’s contribution. Since the exact contribution of each to letters in which both had a part cannot be determined, we have adopted the following practice: we have included letters if they were sent in Mill’s name and, even when signed by Helen Taylor, if they are in his handwriting. We have excluded letters that she both wrote and signed. Notations on the manuscript, whether about publication or Helen’s share of a letter, are reproduced in the first footnote.

When excerpts of letters have been earlier published, for which no manuscripts have been located, we have reprinted them as separate letters, in the hope of leaving as few lacunae in Mill’s correspondence as possible, and on the chance that the excerpts may lead to the recovery of the full text. In view of the very widespread dispersal of Mill’s letters, more will undoubtedly come to light. Some that did during the course of printing this edition, too late to include in the regular order, have been placed in Appendix II. Readers who come into possession of additional letters or of information about their location will render valuable service to Mill scholarship if they will inform the Editor of the Collected Works at the University of Toronto Press.

In assembling and editing as large a collection of letters as this, the editors have inevitably been dependent upon the generous assistance of many persons. Our basic indebtedness has, of course, been to Professor F. A. von Hayek, who in the course of his project, undertaken in 1942, to collect and publish the earlier letters of Mill, also made transcripts of many later letters, Edition: current; Page: [ix] including about half of those to be found in this edition. The originals of some of these can no longer be located (for example, letters to Thomas Hare, once in the possession of Mrs. K. E. Roberts), and Professor von Hayek’s transcripts have served as the source of our text in such instances. He generously turned over to us all his files relating to Mill’s correspondence. Without his help, the work of collecting would have been greatly increased. We, and all students of Mill, must be sincerely grateful to him.

We are indebted for the grant of John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and Fulbright research fellowships in 1962-63 to the senior editor which enabled him to do much of the collecting in England. We have owed much over the past ten years to a number of assistants whose employment was made possible by funds from the endowment of the Class of 1916 Professorship at Cornell University held by the senior editor. Mrs. Emily Morrison in the early stages of the editing got the work off to a good start. In London in 1962-63 Mr. Peter M. Jackson contributed greatly in locating out-of-the-way letters and information valuable for the annotation. Mrs. Eleanor Pike in the earlier stages of the work did much of the typing. Two graduate students at Cornell, Mrs. Barbara Hutchison Groninger and Mr. Edwin J. Kenney, contributed a good deal during their summers. Mrs. Nancy C. Martin located at Colindale some published letters, and Miss Gillian Workman an unpublished letter at the Public Records Office. The mainstay of the work since 1963, however, has been Mrs. Celia Sieverts, whose knowledge of European languages, skill and persistence in tracking down often very obscure information, and passion for accuracy have made significant contributions. Without her help, this edition would have suffered greatly.

Many have aided us in the collecting of the widely scattered letters. Dr. James M. Osborn of Yale University has with unfailing generosity made available many letters from his large and ever-growing collection. Mr. Joseph H. Schaffner of New York freely gave access to his private collection. M. Pierre Sadi-Carnot arranged for the photographing of letters in his family papers, as did Mr. W. Rosenberg of the University of Canterbury, N.Z. The late Professor Delio Cantimori of Florence secured photographs for us of letters to Pasquale Villari in the library of the Vatican. Professor Eileen Curran of Colby College, in the course of her research for The Wellesley Index, turned up a good many letters, often in out-of-the-way manuscript files. Dr. William E. S. Thomas of Christ Church, Oxford, located letters to Col. William Napier and long-sought letters to Sir William Molesworth, which Sir John Molesworth-St. Aubyn has given permission to publish. Mr. G. A. Wood of Newcastle, England, sent from his family papers letters to William Wood. Mr. D. Flanagan of the Co-operative Union Ltd., Manchester, was most helpful in permitting access to that organization’s collection of George Jacob Holyoake’s papers. Mr. Dennis O’Brien of Queen’s University, Edition: current; Page: [x] Belfast, Ireland, kindly supplied photocopies of letters to Lord Overstone. A number of persons contributed over the years to the search for the copies of Mill’s letters smuggled out of Prague at the time of the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany: Professor Eugene Rice, now of Columbia University, searched archives in Prague, but it was Dr. Linda L. McAlister, then of Cornell, who provided the clue that led us to Professor Roderick M. Chisholm of Brown University, who was able to supply photographs from the Brentano collection. Professor Jack Stillinger of the University of Illinois, Professor Michael Wolff, then of Indiana University, now of the University of Massachusetts, Professor J. A. La Nauze and Mr. N. B. de Marchi of the Australian National University, Professor F. B. Smith of the University of Melbourne, Mr. Richard Ormond of the National Portrait Gallery in London, Mr. J. H. Prynne of the Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, all helped us in gaining access to letters in the possession of their respective institutions. Mrs. Evelyn Pugh of George Washington University and Mr. Russell Buchan of Vanderbilt University located for us letters published in American newspapers. Among those who supplied us with letters in their possession were Professor Joseph Hamburger of Yale University, Principal John M. Robson of the University of Toronto, the late Dr. Adelaide Weinberg of London, Professor Edward Alexander of the University of Washington, Professor Ronald H. Coase of the University of Virginia, the late Professor Jacob Viner of Princeton University, Professor Joseph Dorfman of Columbia University, Professor Leslie Marchand of Rutgers University, Professor Edward Shils of the University of Chicago, Mrs. Caroline Hughes D’Agostino and Mrs. George Hughes, Professor Iring Fetscher, Mr. Richard A. Ehrlich, Mr. E. Liggett, Mr. Michael Maurice, and Mr. L. S. Johnson. Professor Cecil Lang of the University of Virginia, Professor Walter E. Houghton of Wellesley College, and Dr. Stephen Frick of Cornell called our attention to letters in various libraries in England. The late Professor Daniel Villey of Paris provided us with information that led to the recovery of a number of letters to Charles Dupont-White. In other searches in Paris we were assisted by Professors Anne Humphreys, John Mineka, and Baxter Hathaway. Professor von Hayek graciously permitted us to reproduce the portrait of Harriet Mill in his possession, as did Dr. Graham Hutton his hitherto unreproduced portrait of Mill.

Others who aided in various ways, particularly in the annotation, included Professors Gordon Kirkwood, Harry Caplan, James Hutton, Douglas Dowd, Robert Kaske, Edward Morris, all of Cornell University; Professor Paul Parker of Hamilton College; Harold E. Dailey of Columbia University; M. J.-P. Mayer, editor of the works of De Tocqueville; Professor Henry W. Spiegel of the Catholic University of America; Professor Edward C. Mack of the City University of New York; Professor Ann Robson of the University Edition: current; Page: [xi] of Toronto. Of the many librarians to whose assistance we are indebted we can mention here only Professors Felix Reichmann, the late George H. Healey, and Donald Eddy of the Cornell University Library, Miss Judith A. Schiff of the Yale University Library, and Mr. C. G. Allen of the British Library of Political and Economic Science at the London School of Economics, who have over the years been unfailingly generous. To Muriel Mineka and Janie Lindley we owe our deepest gratitude for assistance in countless ways, but most of all for their sympathetic interest which has sustained us throughout the long task. If we have overlooked some in this long catalogue of our debts, we extend our apologies. We cannot conclude, however, without acknowledging the wise supervision and counsel of the present editor of the Collected Works; from Principal John M. Robson’s comprehensive and detailed knowledge of Mill we have profited at almost every turn.

Introduction

It seems to me that there is a very great significance in letter-writing, and that it differs from daily intercourse as the dramatic differs from the epic or the narrative. It is the life of man, and above all the chief part of his life, his inner life, not gradually unfolded without break or sudden transition, those changes which take place insensibly being also manifested insensibly; but exhibited in a series of detached scenes, taken at considerable intervals from one another, shewing the completed change of position or feeling, without the process by which it was effected; affording a glimpse or partial view of the mighty river of life at some few points, and leaving the imagination to trace to itself such figure or scheme as it can of the course of the stream in that far larger portion of space where it winds its way through thickets or impenetrable forests and is invisible: this alone being known to us, that whatever may have been its course through the wilderness, it has had some course, & that a continuous one, & which might by human opportunity have been watched and discovered, though to us, too probably, destined to be for ever unknown. . . .

Mill to John Sterling, May 24, 1832

the present four volumes and the two volumes of Earlier Letters, published in 1963, constitute a collected edition of all the letters of John Stuart Mill available at this time. The separate publication of earlier and later letters, instead of the more usual multi-volume single publication of a whole collection all in one sequence and provided with one index, was dictated more by circumstances than by any inherent distinction between Mill’s earlier and later letters. The whole correspondence is the life of the man, “and above all the chief part of his life, his inner life.”

When, thirty years ago, Professor Friedrich von Hayek first turned his attention to Mill’s correspondence, however, a major reason for collecting and separately publishing his earlier letters was the inadequate representation of them in the only collected edition of Mill’s correspondence—the two volumes edited and published by Hugh S. R. Elliot in 1910. That collection of 368 letters contained only 52 for the years ending with 1848, somewhat less than one in ten of those it proved possible to assemble. It seemed reasonable to infer that Mill’s later correspondence was much more adequately represented in the Elliot edition, but that inference has proved not wholly sound. It is true that Elliot includes a larger proportion of the extant later letters than of the earlier: about one in six of the more than 1800 post-1848 letters, as against one in ten of the earlier letters. That larger proportion turns out, however, to be misleading. Elliot’s collection is no more fully Edition: current; Page: [xvi] representative of the substance of the later correspondence than it is of the earlier.

That this is so is not to be charged to Elliot’s defects as an editor, but rather to be the circumstances under which he worked. Professor von Hayek in his Introduction to Earlier Letters has recounted in some detail the history of Mill’s papers after 1873, and the story need not be repeated here. Suffice it to recall that Mill had evidently intended that a selection of his letters should eventually be published; at least as early as 1849 he preserved drafts of some of them and at some point, presumably late in his life, carefully labelled a good many, “For publication.” His intention was long frustrated, not purposely it is clear, by his stepdaughter, Helen Taylor, who inherited his property, his copyrights, and his papers. She admired her stepfather deeply and sought to honour his name and extend his reputation; she promptly prepared for publication and edited his posthumously published books, the Autobiography (1873), Three Essays on Religion (1874), the fourth volume of Dissertations and Discussions (1875), and “Chapters on Socialism” (1879), and planned to edit his letters. Professor von Hayek (Earlier Letters, p. xviii) cites a passage written by Helen about three months after Mill’s death:

I have all my dear stepfather’s letters, preserved, looked through from time to time by himself, arranged in order by myself, and left by him in my hands with directions, verbal and written, to deal with them according to my judgement. When the more pressing task of the publication of his MSS. is completed, I shall, if I live, occupy myself with his correspondence, if I do not live it will be for my literary Executors to decide what to do with it.

The statement, as will presently be seen, contains at least one exaggeration: she did not have in her possession all Mill’s letters. Those she did have she guarded jealously for over thirty years; she never got around to publishing them herself, and repeatedly refused to permit others to publish even excerpts from them. At her death in 1907, her niece, Mary Taylor, younger daughter of Helen’s brother Algernon, inherited her property, including the Mill letters in her possession. Soon thereafter, Mary Taylor decided to execute the long-deferred project to publish them. She arranged for a little known writer, Hugh Elliot, to prepare the edition from the collection so long in the possession of Helen Taylor. He was not permitted to publish family papers, the most important of which were many letters to Harriet Mill and Helen Taylor; Mary Taylor proposed to publish separately a selection of these herself. Elliot apparently was under no obligation, and apparently felt none, to look farther afield for letters not in the collection turned over to him; after all, it contained some hundreds of letters, both to and by Mill. By the rather loose standards still prevailing in 1910 for the editing of letters, Elliot prepared an adequate edition that was widely and favourably reviewed.

Edition: current; Page: [xvii]

Only in recent years has it become evident how meagrely the edition represented the range and variety of Mill’s correspondence. In selecting his letters for possible publication Mill had sought to advance the spread of his opinions on a number of subjects rather than to preserve details of his personal life in his later years; the selected letters were not to serve as an autobiography but as a kind of anthology of those of his opinions that he felt might be helpful to an audience wider than that to which they had been originally addressed. A kindred motivation is noticeable in the last chapter of his Autobiography, which opens with this statement: “From this time [about 1840], what is worth relating of my life will come into very small compass; for I have no further mental changes to tell of, but only, as I hope, a continued mental progress; which does not admit of a consecutive history, and the results of which, if real, will best be found in my writings. I shall, therefore, greatly abridge the chronicle of my subsequent years.” As a result the final chapter, most readers seem to agree, is the least interesting part of the Autobiography, in that it is least self-revealing. The period of Mill’s life covered by it is also the one that stands most in need of the supplementary detail, the glimpses into his personal life, his marriage, his friendships, his enthusiasms, and his disappointments, which now, nearly one hundred years after his death, only his letters can supply.

That kind of supplementary detail, Elliot, limited as he was by Mary Taylor’s restrictions and by Mill’s selection of his own correspondence, could hardly have been expected to provide. It is even a question, working when he did, whether he could have located many of the letters of which Mill had not kept copies. Elliot had access to seven of Mill’s earlier correspondences, those with John Sterling, Thomas Carlyle, W. J. Fox, John Robertson, Gustave d’Eichthal, Robert Barclay Fox, and Auguste Comte (the latter four had each been separately published before 1910), but he presented only a small number of the letters to Sterling and Carlyle, accepting almost wholly the limits of Mill’s selection. In all likelihood, Elliot probably did not even see the long sequences of letters Mill wrote to his closest friends during his later years. The past twenty-five or thirty years have brought to light a number of extensive series of Mill’s letters that had been preserved by their recipients but either had not been written in draft or had not been kept in that form by Mill.

As a consequence, Elliot’s edition gives neither a balanced conspectus of Mill’s correspondence as a whole nor a lifelike portrait of the man. What the edition does give is a good sampling of what might be called his “public” or “non-personal” correspondence. Increasingly, after the success of his Logic (1843) and his Political Economy (1848), Mill received many letters, often from complete strangers, asking his opinion, or even advice, on a wide range of questions raised by his writings—among others, questions on religion, Edition: current; Page: [xviii] philosophy, ethics, logic, economics, political reform, labour relations, and women’s rights. The letter writers included students, clergymen, working men as well as titled lords, aspiring writers, amateur political economists, wouldbe philosophers, and practising politicians. They were not all British; letters came with increasing frequency from Frenchmen, Italians, Germans, and Americans. As early as 1850 he wrote Frederick J. Furnivall, “My whole time would hardly suffice to give satisfactory answers to all the questions I am asked by correspondents previously unknown to me” (p. 53). Nevertheless, Mill, always seeking to promote the improvement of mankind by doing what he could to advance sound thinking and opinion, felt an obligation to such earnest readers and correspondents and conscientiously tried to write them helpful answers. Of such letters he frequently kept MS drafts, but of letters to his friends and regular correspondents he seldom kept copies. As a consequence, Elliot’s edition, dependent almost wholly on Mill’s selection, has a higher proportion of such impersonal letters than is characteristic of the larger body of his correspondence. The present edition with its much larger number of personal letters should enable students of Mill to gain a clearer picture and a greater understanding of the man.

The following comparisons are not presented in a spirit of denigration; the Elliot edition has served a useful purpose for over sixty years, but in view of the increased interest in and knowledge of Mill it is no longer sufficient. The search begun by Professor von Hayek during World War II for a more adequate collection has been carried on by others and while it is likely, indeed certain, that more letters will come to light in the years that lie ahead, the present editors hope that this edition will meet the needs of students of Mill for some years to come.

To resort to a numerical comparison has its limitations but it can also be revealing. Of 124 letters located to Mill’s lifelong friend and fellow reformer, Edwin Chadwick, for instance, Elliot prints nine in whole or part. Of 92 extant letters to John Elliot Cairnes, Mill’s friend and disciple, Elliot has five. Of 60 to John Chapman, the publisher for many years of the Westminster Review, Elliot has two, and a like number to William E. Hickson, Mill’s successor as Editor of the London and Westminster, while we have been able to include 32. Elliot has five letters to Henry Fawcett, the blind politician and political economist—this edition, 43; Elliot, three to Thomas Hare, the advocate of proportional representation—this edition, 41; Elliot, five to George Grote, the historian of Greece and friend of Mill since his boyhood, and five to Sir Charles Dilke—this edition, 22 and 26, respectively. Elliot has one letter to Louis Blanc, out of 25 now available, and one to Gustave d’Eichthal (in a renewal of an earlier correspondence) as compared with 54. Elliot includes two letters to George Croom Robertson, this edition 29. Elliot has no letters to John Plummer, a working-class journalist; to George Edition: current; Page: [xix] J. Holyoake, the radical secularist and proponent of co-operatives; to Augustus De Morgan, the mathematician; to Herbert Spencer, the philosopher; or to William Dougal Christie, an active opponent of electoral corruption, who after Mill’s death rose to the defence of his reputation against the slanderous attacks of Abraham Hayward; the letters to these men now published total 162. We have been unable to improve much on Elliot’s fifteen letters to Alexander Bain, the Scottish logician and psychologist, for we have failed to locate the autograph letters to him. We have, however, succeeded in locating more originals of the letters to the Italian historian Pasquale Villari than were available to Elliot in drafts, but there are undoubtedly more yet to be found. We have been able to add only two to Elliot’s ten to T. E. Cliffe Leslie, the political economist, and only six to Elliot’s nine to William Thomas Thornton, Mill’s friend and long-time colleague at the East India House.

These additional letters have been assembled from widely separated collections: the letters to Chadwick, De Morgan, and Robertson in the library of University College, London; to Cairnes and Fawcett at the London School of Economics, as the result of the efforts of Professor von Hayek when he was on the faculty there; to John Chapman, chiefly in the libraries of the National University of Australia at Canberra, of Indiana University, and the London School of Economics; to Hickson, at the Huntington Library in California; to Louis Blanc, at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris; both earlier and later letters to Gustave d’Eichthal at the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, also in Paris; and to Charles Dupont-White, in the possession of M. Pierre Sadi-Carnot of Paris; to Hare, a private collection in the possession in 1943 of Mrs. K. E. Roberts of London, and in the British Museum; to Grote and Dilke in the British Museum; to Plummer at the University of Melbourne, Australia; to Holyoake at the Manchester Co-operative Union, Ltd.; to Spencer, at Northwestern University; to Christie, at Cornell University; and to Villari, in the library of the Vatican in Rome. Both earlier and later letters to Henry S. Chapman are in the possession of W. Rosenberg of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, and all the letters to Thomas Carlyle are in the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh. Of the series of letters to American correspondents, those to Charles Eliot Norton are at Harvard, those to Rowland G. Hazard at the Rhode Island Historical Society. Except for a small number at the London School of Economics, the many letters to Harriet are at Yale University. It should be noted that all these series, except the one to Spencer, are of the original autograph letters, not of MS drafts preserved by Mill.

Professor von Hayek, in his account of the first sale of 21 lots of Mill’s papers at Sotheby’s on March 29, 1922, notes that most of the miscellaneous letters now in various American libraries, notably those at the Johns Hopkins Edition: current; Page: [xx] University (248 letters, mostly drafts), derive from that sale. A large part of the major collection at the London School of Economics derives from the same sale, as do the 61 letters at the Brotherton Library of the University of Leeds, and the 18 letters to John Sterling in the library of King’s College, Cambridge. The 368 letters in the Elliot edition seem to have been drawn almost wholly from the collection eventually disposed of at this first sale in 1922. Elliot was denied the use of the 132 manuscript letters to Harriet included among the 14 lots disposed of at the second sale at Sotheby’s on July 27, 1927; these letters form the largest part of the 230 letters now at Yale University, which also possesses a good many from the first sale. Family letters not included in either sale were eventually given to the London School of Economics by the National Provincial Bank, Ltd., the residuary legatees and literary executors of Mary Taylor.

Many important letters have been found in published versions for which no manuscripts have apparently survived. The most important of these are 31 letters in full or in part to Theodor Gomperz, a young German scholar who translated a number of Mill’s works and edited the first collected edition of his writings. These letters were first published by Heinrich Gomperz in his biography of his father (Vienna, 1936) and then in part by Lord Stamp, who had purchased the MSS, in The Times on December 29, 1938. The manuscripts were destroyed by the bombing raid of April 16, 1941, in which Lord Stamp was killed. Other letters, usually in excerpted form, the MSS of which disappeared in less spectacular fashion, have been found in Bain’s biography of Mill and in various biographies of Mill’s friends. Many have also been located in English and American newspapers, most of them published by the recipients without Mill’s permission. His reputation and his influence in the later years of his life were so great that letters from him were rightly judged newsworthy. Mill was often annoyed by such unauthorized publication. As he explained to Duncan McLaren in a letter of January 3, 1869,

As a rule . . . I prefer that my letters should not be made public unless they were written with a view to the contingency of their being so, & I have seen with regret several recent instances in which publicity has been given to them without my consent; not that I shrink from exposure to criticism, which any public man, even any writer, ought to welcome, from however hostile a quarter; but because, when writing confidentially to friends who feel as one does oneself, one takes many things for granted which would require explanation to general readers, & one does not guard one’s expressions as prudence & courtesy would require one to do in addressing oneself to those who differ with one.

We cannot approve of the discourtesy of correspondents who published personal letters, but, since the manuscripts of most of these have disappeared, students of Mill may feel some inclination to condone the discourtesy. On at least one occasion Mill granted permission to publish his letter, but requested Edition: current; Page: [xxi] the recipient to modify some of the wording (Letter 1258). Most of such letters, of course, were on topics of public interest at the time, and most of the correspondents who made them available for publication agreed with Mill’s opinions as expressed in the letters and wished to gain for their own causes his prestigious support.

Such letters are largely impersonal in tone and provide few insights into the nature of the man who wrote them. For more such insights we are now fortunate in having available, in addition to the Autobiography, a series of letters to friends in both the earlier and the later periods of his life. Of the earlier letters, most revealing and most interesting are the series to John Sterling, Thomas Carlyle, William Johnson Fox, Robert Barclay Fox, and Gustave d’Eichthal, largely concentrated in the 1830’s and early 1840’s when Mill after his mental crisis was still in reaction against the emotionally sterile education and philosophic creed of his adolescence and was still reshaping his personal life. Most of the later series lack something of the inherent interest of letters written during a period of crucial intellectual and emotional change. The friendships of one’s youth are likely to be the warmest of one’s life and the least subject to reserve. The earlier years of most autobiographies have an appeal for many readers greater than that of the later years. Nevertheless the series of Mill’s maturity have an attraction of their own, different in quality and intensity perhaps, but nonetheless interesting because of the revelations of the variety of his friendships, the breadth of his interests, the strength of his individuality, and the modernity of his approach to those problems of his age that continue into ours.

Did any Victorian have a wider range of more or less regular correspondents both at home and abroad? At home there were fellow economists like Cairnes and Leslie, the classical scholar George Grote, the philosopher Herbert Spencer, the logician and psychologist Alexander Bain, the writers John Sterling and Thomas Carlyle, the mathematician Augustus De Morgan, political and administrative reformers like Chadwick, Charles Wentworth Dilke, and W. D. Christie, the editors John Chapman and John Morley, W. G. Ward the Roman Catholic convert and apologist, the Unitarian W. J. Fox, and the atheist G. J. Holyoake. Mill’s foreign correspondence marks him as perhaps, in his generation of Englishmen, the most nearly a citizen of the world; it seems almost as though he had chosen correspondents in the United States, the antipodes, and the major European nations so that he might be kept informed of developments in their parts of the world. The writers included: in France, Gustave d’Eichthal, an early St. Simonian, later a classicist, ethnologist, and Biblical scholar, and Charles Dupont-White, political economist and translator of several of Mill’s books; from France, though for most of the years of his friendship an exile in England, the historian, journalist, and radical politician, Louis Blanc; in Vienna, the young classical Edition: current; Page: [xxii] scholar and historian, Gomperz; in Germany, late in Mill’s life, Franz Brentano, the philosopher; in Italy, Pasquale Villari, the historian; in New Zealand, his early friend Henry Chapman, who had emigrated and become an important officer of government; in America, John Lothrop Motley, historian and diplomatist, as well as Charles Eliot Norton, editor and biographer, later a Harvard professor, and Rowland G. Hazard, business man and philosopher. One notices that while Mill’s regular correspondents shared his interests and in the main agreed with his views—most of them might have been labelled liberals or even radicals—by no means all of them came from levels of society that proper mid-Victorians would have labelled “polite”. G. J. Holyoake, ex-Chartist, radical freethinker, and publicist, when various of the journals he published fell into financial difficulties, was rescued by Mill. Louis Blanc, who according to Mill was “associated in the vulgar English mind with everything that can be made a bugbear of” (p. 999), was a frequent dinner guest at Blackheath, both before and after the death of Harriet. William Wood was a worker in the potteries of north England; and John Plummer was a factory worker turned journalist, who with his wife was invited from time to time by Mill to dinner at his home in Blackheath Park. (John Morley once remarked that working men found easier access to Mill than did royalty.) For Mill the crucial test in the choice of both friends and correspondents was whether they could contribute to the advancement of the ideas and causes in which he believed; he was always eager to learn from them and welcomed their opinions even when they differed from him in details.

Some of the correspondences, notably those with Bain, Cairnes, and Spencer, were essentially philosophic discourses conducted by mail, sifting difficult questions in logic, philosophy, science, and political economy, often with a view to the ever-continuing revision and improvement of such major works as the Logic (8 editions) and the Political Economy (7 editions). On one occasion, in thanking Cairnes for his extensive notes for the revision of the Political Economy, Mill remarked the similarity to “the philosophic correspondences in which the thinkers of the 16th and 17th centuries used to compare notes and discuss each other’s opinions before or after publication—of which we have so many interesting specimens in the published works of Descartes” (p. 975). Such letters as that to Bain on the conservation of force (Letter 1554) probably have less interest for the modern reader than the letters that discuss practical questions of political and social reform and the strategies for the attainment of such reforms; still, they do contribute to our understanding of the close reasoning and the constant striving for perfection that always characterized Mill’s philosophic work.

In the letters dealing with reform, there is always a sense of rejoicing in the fellowship of allies, a feeling “of brotherhood in arms with those who Edition: current; Page: [xxiii] are . . . fighting . . . the battles of advanced liberalism” (p. 1511).1 Mill’s need for fellowship was a long-standing one. As early as 1829 in his first extant letter to John Sterling, describing his sense of loneliness in the years following his mental crisis, Mill wrote: “By loneliness I mean the absence of that feeling which has accompanied me through the greater part of my life, that which one fellow traveller, or one fellow soldier has towards another—the feeling of being engaged in the pursuit of a common object, and of mutually cheering one another on, and helping one another in an arduous undertaking” (Earlier Letters, p. 30).

Mill’s life-long need for emotional support is probably the explanation of the riddle of his relationship with Mrs. John Taylor, who after twenty years of close friendship became his wife. Now, with the full publication of all his known extant letters to her, by far the most voluminous of his correspondences, some further clues to the riddle may be discerned.2 When his Autobiography was published within six months after his death, Mill’s extravagant tributes to his wife’s intellectual abilities and to her contributions to his thought and writing were greeted generally with amused scepticism.3 The reviewer in the British Quarterly Review remarked dryly: “Mill had no great faith in a God. He had unbounded confidence in a goddess.” Alexander Bain, reading the proofs of the Autobiography and fearful that Mill’s reputation would suffer seriously if his most extreme claims for his wife were not deleted, wrote to Helen Taylor, Mill’s literary executor, to urge that she should cancel “those sentences where he declares her to be a greater poet than Carlyle, and a greater thinker than himself—and again, a greater leader than his father (or at all events an equal).” Bain continued:

I venture to express the opinion that no such combination has ever been realised in the history of the human race, and I am sure that many will take the same view; and the whole of his statements will be treated as pure hyperbole, proving, indeed, the strength of his feelings, but not the reality of the case. I think that your mother, yourself, and Mr. Mill will all be placed in a false position before the world by such extreme statements.

(Sept. 6, 1873, MS at LSE)

Helen, whether out of loyalty to her mother or unwillingness to distort by omission Mill’s expression of his obsessive admiration of Harriet, refused to make the suggested deletions, though she did, with reluctance, remove praise of herself. Bain’s fears proved to be exaggerated, and over the years most readers of the Autobiography have been inclined to view charitably the Edition: current; Page: [xxiv] extravagant praise of Harriet as the harmless aberration of a love-blinded widower.

A somewhat different perspective on the question, however, is now necessary. Ever since the publication of Professor Jack Stillinger’s edition of The Early Draft of John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography (Urbana, Ill., 1961) it has been clear that most of the praise of Harriet in the Autobiography had been written, not after her death, but during their married life, and indeed had been submitted to her for her approval, which apparently was given without protest. From the letters in the present volumes it is further evident that the defence and justification of Mill’s and Harriet’s unconventional friendship and eventual marriage constituted one of the main original purposes of writing the Autobiography. For Harriet, who participated actively in planning the book, it was probably the major purpose. Mill wrote to her on January 23, 1854, of the desirability of completing it as soon as possible:

What there is of it is in a perfectly publishable state . . . & it contains a full writing out as far as any thing can write out, what you are, as far as I am competent to describe you & what I owe to you—but, besides that until revised by you it is little better than unwritten, it contains nothing about our private circumstances, further than shewing that there was intimate friendship for many years, & you only can decide what more it is necessary or desirable to say in order to stop the mouths of enemies hereafter

(pp. 137-38).

To his request of February 13 that she give him “a general notion of what we should say or imply respecting our private concerns” (p. 159), Harriet’s reply of February 14-15 (one of the very few of her letters to him still extant) was quite explicit:

Should there not be a summary of our relationship from its commencement in 1830—I mean given in a dozen lines—so as to preclude other and different versions of our lives at Ki[ngston] and Wal[ton]—our summer excursions, etc. This ought to be done in its genuine simplicity & truth—strong affection, intimacy of friendship, and no impropriety. It seems to me an edifying picture for those poor wretches who cannot conceive friendship but in sex—nor believe that expediency and the consideration for feelings of others can conquer sensuality. But of course this is not my reason for wishing it done. It is that every ground should be occupied by ourselves on our own subject

(p. 166 n.).

The early draft was written in 1853-54, at a time when the two were still smarting from the gossip that had pursued them for at least twenty years; it was also written at a time when Mill feared that his death was imminent. Evidently, his original intention was to divide the work into two parts, the pre- and the post-Harriet periods of his life. Such a division proved to be impracticable, partly because of the disproportionate lengths of the two periods, and a compromise revision was achieved which blurred the sharp distinction between the two sections. Nevertheless, if Mill had died in, say Edition: current; Page: [xxv] 1856, the work if published would have given the concluding emphasis to the justification and glorification of his wife. In that form it seems reasonable to doubt that it could have added as much to Mill’s reputation as did the final version achieved by the revision and extension completed about 1870.

One can understand that in the months following Harriet’s death on November 3, 1858, Mill in grief for his devastating loss should have eulogized her in his letters. The most extravagant evaluation occurs in a hitherto unpublished letter to Louis Blanc:

I do not speak from feeling but from long standing and sober conviction in saying that when she died this country lost the greatest mind it contained. You cannot know what she was privately, but you, more than most men, can sympathize in the nobleness of her public objects, which never stopped short of perfect distributive justice as the final aim, implying therefore a state of society entirely communist in practice and spirit, whether also in institutions or not. The entire faith in the ultimate possibilities of human nature was drawn from her own glorious character, while her keen perception of present difficulties and obstacles was derived from her wonderful practical discernment, and comprehension of life

(p. 601).

Although the years after 1858 did not mitigate his extravagant estimate of Harriet, they did lead him to soften or omit a number of the asperities which had been clearly inspired by his relationship with her and which she had not sought to modify when she read the draft. It was not by her advice that he eliminated the severe criticism of his mother found in the early draft, or his belittling of his one-time friend John Roebuck, or his attack upon Sarah Austin, whom in earlier years he had addressed as “Dear Mutterlein” (see Earlier Letters).

Harriet’s grudge against the society that had excluded her from polite circles is understandable. As the pretty, striking young wife of a prosperous, not unintelligent though perhaps rather unimaginative, business man, John Taylor, her circle had been limited but not without interest. Although Unitarians may still have been “a sect every where spoken against,” they were intellectually, and to some extent socially, the aristocrats among the Dissenters. The Taylors entertained generously among those whom Carlyle scornfully labelled “friends of the species,” reformers, Benthamites, yet substantial citizens withal. But there was a flaw in the outwardly happy marriage. Mr. Taylor shared too little Harriet’s aesthetic and intellectual interests. Legend has it that she turned for advice to her pastor, the liberal Unitarian preacher and writer, the Reverend William Johnson Fox, and that he was responsible for calling to her attention the twenty-four-year-old John Stuart Mill, then unknown to the general public as a writer but regarded in liberal circles as a highly promising if somewhat manufactured genius. Mill and Mrs. Taylor first met in 1830 in the Taylor home at a dinner party also attended by Harriet Martineau and John Roebuck.

Edition: current; Page: [xxvi]

Just how rapidly the acquaintance ripened into love is not clear, but by the summer of 1832 Mill and Mrs. Taylor were exchanging agonized love letters, and by September, 1833, a crisis was reached in the Taylors’ marriage. She went off to Paris for a trial separation from her husband, and Mill soon followed. Members of her family intervened to patch up the threatened marriage and obviate scandal. Mrs. Taylor returned to her husband’s home and to a marriage henceforth only nominal. She had not, however, “renounced sight” of Mill, and their meetings were frequent, both at her home and elsewhere. From time to time they spent vacations together on the Continent, sometimes with her children and one or another of his younger brothers. Gossip thrived, of course, though the evidence seems fairly clear that there was no sexual relationship. Mrs. Taylor succeeded in holding both her husband and her lover at arm’s length. Some years after her marriage to Mill she told the young Gomperz that she was his Seelenfreundin.

Inevitably, Mill’s attachment to Mrs. Taylor restricted his contacts in English society, and for a time he worried that it would destroy his usefulness as a reformer. Some of his friends he cut because they had advised him against continuing the relationship or had participated in the gossip; others he cut because she disliked them. She herself seems to have had little capacity for friendship, especially with members of her own sex. Her only close woman friend was the somewhat elfin Eliza Flower, who herself came under a cloud because of her relationship with the Reverend W. J. Fox. Mill’s circle narrowed over the long years before the death of John Taylor in 1849 finally made possible the marriage with Harriet in 1851; thereafter the circle became even more circumscribed. He soon cut himself off from his sisters and preserved only a formal relationship with his mother, all because of fancied slights to his wife. An admittedly gauche letter by his brother George about the marriage provoked a savage, withering reply (pp. 73-75). Probably the greatest blot on Mill’s character was his treatment, apparently with Harriet’s encouragement, of his family after his marriage, as seen in other letters included in this edition. Even after his mother’s death when he proposed to Harriet that he should give up his share of his mother’s estate to his sisters, Harriet insisted that he should not yield to his generous impulse (see pp. 220 and 223). Only some years after her death did he begin to treat his sisters more kindly and even to provide financial assistance for at least one of them, Mary Colman.

As for society, Henry Reeve, acquainted with Mill since their boyhood, writer of the Edinburgh’s hostile review of the Autobiography in 1874, spoke for Mrs. Grundy: “From the moment he devoted himself exclusively to what he calls ‘the most valuable friendship of my life,’ [his ties with talented women like Mrs. Buller, Mrs. Austin, and Mrs. Grote were broken.] Whatever may have been their regard for Mill, these ladies found it impossible to countenance Edition: current; Page: [xxvii] or receive a woman who had placed herself in so equivocal a position.” (ER, CXXXIX (Jan., 1874), 122.) Enough is known of Mrs. Austin and Mrs. Grote, as well as of Mrs. Carlyle, and of their tolerance for unconventionality, to make one suspect that it was not their concern for Mrs. Grundy, but their not wholly unjustified dislike for Harriet that led them to ostracize her. She, deeply resenting her exclusion, of course attributed it to her breaking of convention in her long association with Mill during her first husband’s lifetime. And under her sway Mill made the justification of that association one of his major purposes in writing his autobiography.

Was he then simply deluded? Was he who was ordinarily so discerning in his analysis of men and motives blinded when it came to appraising her? There can be no question that from the first she filled an enormous need in his emotional life. Suffering from a too exclusively intellectual education that had starved the affections and led to his near nervous breakdown at twenty, he sought a friend with whom he could share his inmost thoughts and feelings and upon whom he could rely for comradeship in the causes he held most dear. For a time, as his letters reveal, it seemed that John Sterling might fulfil the role, and for a while, even after Mill had met Harriet, Carlyle appeared to be a possibility. But, for good or ill, the friend he found was Mrs. Taylor: for good, in that she provided a centre of stability for his emotional and, to some extent, his intellectual life; for ill, in that she fostered the isolation from his contemporaries that had characterized his earlier life. Loverlike, in his early relation with her, he engaged in lover’s flattery of her, not of her beauty but of her intellectual abilities and interests, on which she prided herself. She was intelligent, she shared his passion for social reform, and she was at times even more direct and unwavering than he in going to the heart of a social or political problem. She also had a much better sense than he did of management of everyday, practical affairs, and after their marriage he became dependent upon her judgment in such matters. She in turn seems to have become more and more dependent upon him in her need of praise. One can understand a woman’s acceptance of even extravagant flattery in a lover’s or even a husband’s letters; one finds it more difficult to comprehend a wife’s coolly approving for publication such extraordinary tributes as Mill paid Harriet in the Autobiography.

Although she seems not to have objected to overpraise of herself, on at least one occasion she objected to his too laudatory words in a review article. Mill acknowledged the fault: “I am always apt to get enthusiastic about those who do great things for progress & are immensely ahead of everybody else in their age . . . & I am not always sufficiently careful to explain that the praise is relative to the then state & not the now state of knowledge & of what ought to be improved feeling” (pp. 17-18). In this case his perhaps extravagant praise was for the ancient Athenians, but his reply gives a clue to his feelings Edition: current; Page: [xxviii] about Harriet; in his view she was always for doing “great things for progress” and was “immensely ahead of everybody else in [her] age,” in “what ought to be improved feeling.”

In his marriage the sense of communion, of sharing in the advancement of common causes, gave Mill relief from his otherwise ever-present feeling of aloneness. Sympathizing with Frederick Denison Maurice’s expression of “mental loneliness” in 1865, he wrote:

In our age & country, every person with any mental power at all, who both thinks for himself & has a conscience, must feel himself, to a very great degree, alone. I shd think you have decidedly more people who are in real communion of thoughts, feelings & purposes with you than I have. I am in this supremely happy, that I have had, & even now have [with Helen Taylor], that communion in the fullest degree where it is most valuable, in my own home. But I have it nowhere else; & if people did but know how much more precious to me is the faintest approach to it, than all the noisy eulogiums in the world!

(p. 1048.)

To the need for that continued communion through some long separations we owe the large number of Mill’s letters to Harriet. Several years after their marriage both were afflicted with critical ill health. First, in the fall of 1853, on the advice of their physicians, Mill and Harriet, accompanied by Helen, sought to restore their health by a three-month residence in the more favourable climate of Nice. There Harriet suffered a severe haemorrhage and nearly died. Mill’s own condition improved little if any, but after moving Harriet to Hyères, where she remained until spring, he returned to his work at the India House early in January. His 38 letters to her between December 28, 1853, and April 11, 1854, when she returned home, give the best picture available of their life at Blackheath Park, for in the two other series of his letters to her, he was travelling while she remained in England. Almost none of her letters to him during these separations survived, for he seems dutifully to have followed her instructions to destroy them (p. 146).

His letters to her are, of course, informal and miscellaneous, dealing more or less at random with matters of both private and public interest. The underlying concern in them all is the state of their health; he awaits eagerly her reports and gives her details of his visits to his physicians, describes sometimes almost clinically his symptoms, and specifies the medicines he is taking. Linked with the matter of their health are the questions of when to retire from the East India Company and where they should live thereafter. The prospect of reduced income in retirement was perhaps responsible for Mill’s concern about household expenses during his wife’s absence, but more likely it was his ineptitude in dealing with practical details usually attended to by Harriet. The supply of potatoes and bread seemed to diminish too rapidly, the butcher’s bills seemed too high, two tons of coals had lasted twelve weeks in the spring and summer of 1853 but a similar quantity had surprisingly Edition: current; Page: [xxix] lasted only nine weeks after November 12 (p. 136)! And then there were rats to be coped with; his neighbour at Blackheath had sent a note to the effect that rats dislodged from his own property had taken refuge in an outhouse on Mill’s side. Mill could find no key to the outhouse. What to do? Write Harriet, of course, who from France soon supplied the solution to the problem (pp. 180, 182, 188).

Mill’s dependence on her at this time extended well beyond the problems of domestic life. He seems seldom to have answered a letter without consulting her about the form of the reply. One can understand why he should have consulted her about replying to a complimentary note from Mrs. Grote about his review of her husband’s book, for Mrs. Grote was one of those they thought had gossiped about them. Harriet evidently recommended a dignified silence. Mill thought it rather strange that Grote, with whom he had been on close terms for years, did not perceive that Mill was now addressing him as Mr. Grote (pp. 123 and 133). Other replies to letters hardly requiring such delicacy of decorum nevertheless were not sent until Harriet had been consulted. When the legislature of South Carolina sent him a presentation copy of a book by John C. Calhoun (pp. 142-43), when the Christian Socialist Frederick Furnivall wanted to reprint from the Political Economy the chapter on the future of the labouring classes (p. 149), and when Sir Charles Trevelyan requested an opinion on a plan for the reform of the Civil Service (pp. 175, 178, 184), the replies all required Harriet’s advice and approval.

Harriet’s role in the early version of the Autobiography has been described; she was also consulted at almost every turn in his writings of this period. She contributed three “beautiful” sentences to the essay on Nature (p. 144). When that was completed, he asked her to tell him what to attempt next:

I will just copy the list of subjects we made out in the confused order in which we put them down. Differences of character (nation, race, age, sex, temperament). Love. Education of tastes. Religion de l’Avenir. Plato. Slander. Foundation of morals. Utility of religion. Socialism. Liberty. Doctrine that causation is will. To these I have now added from your letter: Family, & Conventional

(p. 152).

Harriet in reply recommended “The Utility of Religion” in a sentence that revealed that the subject was one close to her heart (p. 165, n. 3). He consulted her about revisions of the Political Economy for a new edition (pp. 185-87, 195). There is no evidence that he ever asked her help for more than verbal changes in revising the Logic (a very “dry” book, she wrote her brother Arthur, which to her surprise continued to sell well). Mill accepted readily her suggestion that he decline John Chapman’s invitation to review Harriet Martineau’s abridged translation of Comte’s Philosophie Positive, for he had long disliked Miss Martineau (pp. 126 and 134). His wife’s dominance in the choice of topics to write upon in this period seems clear, Edition: current; Page: [xxx] and even after her death her influence continued to guide his choice of political and social subjects; only in his writings on philosophical and psychological questions does her influence as a motivating force seem to have been minimal.

Harriet was a rebel not without cause. In Mill she found a man whose extraordinary education had shaped him also for rebellion against the social, moral, and political conventions of his time. In him she found too a man almost desperately lonely, subject to recurring periods of depression. It is perhaps small wonder that in gratitude for her braving the censure of society, for her sharing in his devotion to liberal causes, and for her strengthening of his spiritual and emotional resources, he sought to induce the world to accept his estimate of her. Neither he nor some of his recent biographers have convinced us that she was the originating mind behind his work, but no one can doubt her importance in his inner life, the well-springs of which had been threatened by drought.

The other two series of Mill’s letters to Harriet, because they are essentially travel letters, are less revealing. The travel on both trips was undertaken in the hope of recovering his health. In the last letter (Letter 154) of the earlier series to Harriet he had confessed that his doctor had at last told him that he had an advanced case of consumption. He was too ill to go to Paris to accompany Harriet and Helen when they returned to England about the middle of April, 1854. Thereafter, his health deteriorated rapidly and he lost weight at an alarming rate. Yielding to the advice of his physicians, he left England on June 9, 1854, for a trip to Brittany by way of the Channel Islands. Fifteen of his letters to Harriet during his six-week absence have survived. Although, as he admitted a year later, he thought his death was imminent, he kept up a brave front for Harriet. He focused attention upon plans for retirement to the Continent: “I suppose we shall never again live in England permanently” (p. 223). Everywhere he went he made inquiries about the cost of living and reported the prices of food in the various towns. He took his cod liver oil regularly, but his favourite remedy for his health was walking: “I am always out of doors, & walking when not travelling” (p. 218). A walk of twenty or more miles a day even in his weakened condition was not uncommon. Gradually he began to take on some weight and when he returned home in late July his condition seemed improved.

With the approach of winter, however, more travel seemed necessary. Leaving Harriet at Torquay with her mother and sister as guests, Mill left England on December 8 for a trip of over six months to southern France, Italy, Sicily, and Greece, not rejoining Harriet until he met her in Paris in mid-June. The 49 letters he wrote her during his travels can be read with interest in themselves, apart from their contributions to any further understanding of their relationship. They are the letters of a highly intelligent Edition: current; Page: [xxxi] observer, and those written from Sicily and Greece in particular are valuable for their pictures of wild country not often visited in the mid-nineteenth century by Englishmen. The railroads had not yet reached those areas, and the difficulties of travel by the public diligences, by mule, and on foot were great enough to deter many a healthier traveller than Mill, who had been almost at the point of death only six months earlier. Since the letters are written to his wife, they of course recount in some detail the progress of his health, his gains or losses in weight whenever he finds available scales, his persistent bouts with indigestion, and the gradually improving condition of his lungs. Addicted to long walks since boyhood, he now almost literally walked himself back to health, travelling often through wild country in Sicily and Greece, climbing mountains and fording streams, often in pelting rain, and always botanizing as he went along, collecting loads of specimens which he dried and sorted in the evenings. Many of the inns were primitive, and infested with fleas. Writing from Greece on May 26, he wryly described one of his bouts with the pests:

I never saw so many fleas in the whole of my precious life, as I found on my clothes & body on undressing last night. After chasing them one by one I laid the palm of my hand over six or seven at once. During the night they danced a saraband on my face, & I fancied I could hear the sounds of myriads of them jumping on the floor: but perhaps it was only the droppings of the swallows, for there are always swallows in these places; the people think them lucky; & they often fly about in the night, as these did. In the morning while I was sponging myself nearly a dozen of the enemy gathered on my legs & feet. What is worse, I have brought a colony of them with me to this comparatively clean place, & they are tormenting me worse than ever. One little rascal had the impudence to bite my hand to my very face

(p. 463).

Away from the cities he recounts the breathtaking beauty of the natural scenery: near Vaucluse in Southern France (p. 267); near Chiaramonte in Sicily (pp. 381-82), where the view from the hills and mountains is such that “one feels lifted out of all the littleness of it & conscious of a beauty which seems lent to it by something grander”; near Mount Pentelicus in Greece, where “The more than earthly beauty of this country quite takes away from me all care or feeling about the historical associations, which I had so strongly in Syracuse. That I shall have when I read Greek history again after becoming acquainted with the localities” (p. 429). Despite this statement he is almost always eager to associate literature and history with the places he visits; in Bordeaux, in preparation for Italy, he buys a volume which contains the poetry of Dante, Petrarch, Ariosto, and Tasso (p. 251); in Sicily he reads the native poets Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus (p. 401), as well as Goethe’s Italian travels (p. 339), and he saves Sophocles for Greece (p. 401).

In Rome and the cities of northern Italy he performs zestfully “the first Edition: current; Page: [xxxii] duty of man when in Italy, that of seeing pictures” (p. 270). He had never before been so “immersed in pictures” (p. 312). He is modest about his pretension in venturing to give his opinions on the paintings, sculpture, and architecture he sees, but “as all I say about them is the expression of real feelings which they give or which they fail to give me, what I say though superficial is genuine & may go for what it is worth—it does not come from books or from other people . . .” (p. 312). He protests against prudery: “the precious King of Naples has shut up the Venus Callipyge & the other Venuses on pretext of public decency—the Pope has done the same to the Venus of the Capitol. If these things are done in Italy what shall we come to next?” (p. 317). Although Mill’s education had been defective with respect to art (as had the education of most Englishmen of his time), he now began to gain confidence in his judgments. “I find the pleasure which pictures & statues give me increases with every new experience, & I am acquiring strong preferences & discriminations which with me I think is a sign of progress” (p. 295).

In the midst of his new-found pleasures in art and of the renewal of his joy in natural beauty, Mill nonetheless never strayed very far from the consciousness of his duty to write for the betterment of mankind. “We have got a power of which we must try to make a good use during the few years of life we have left” (p. 332). In Rome he was moved to recall a paper he had written for his volume of essays he had projected with Harriet:

I came back to an idea we have talked about & thought that the best thing to write & publish at present would be a volume on Liberty. So many things might be brought into it & nothing seems to me more needed—it is a growing need too, for opinion tends to encroach more & more on liberty, & almost all the projects of social reformers in these days are really liberticide—Comte, particularly so. I wish I had brought with me here the paper on liberty that I wrote for our volume of Essays—perhaps my dearest will kindly read it through & tell me whether it will do as the foundation of one part of the volume in question—If she thinks so I will try to write & publish it in 1856 if my health permits as I hope it will

(p. 294).

He revived also a plan he had thought of as early as 1839 (see Earlier Letters, p. 411) to publish a collection of his periodical essays.

It seems desirable to do it in our lifetime, for I fancy we cannot prevent other people from doing it when we are dead . . . : now if we do it, we can exclude what we should not choose to republish, & nobody would think of reprinting what the writer had purposely rejected. Then the chance of the name selling them is as great as it is ever likely to be—the collection would probably be a good deal reviewed, for anybody thinks he can review a miscellaneous collection but few a treatise on logic or political economy. . . . I hope to publish some volume almost annually for the next few years if I live as long—& I should like to get this reprint, if it is to be done at all, off my hands during the next few months after I return in Edition: current; Page: [xxxiii] which India House business being in arrear will prevent me from settling properly to the new book. Will my dearest one think about this & tell me what her judgment & also what her feeling is

(p. 348).

As it turned out, however, Mill did not publish another book until the year after Harriet’s death in November, 1858. It was not merely the arrears of India House business that delayed the fulfilment of his plans; on him was placed the burden of the defence of the Company against the takeover of the administration of India by the British government in 1858. After his retirement and the death of his wife, he published in close succession in 1859 the essay On Liberty, his pamphlet on Parliamentary Reform, and the first two volumes of his review articles, Dissertations and Discussions.

Again during his 1855 trip he was concerned about his approaching retirement. Almost every place he went he noted its cost of living and its suitability as a home for them. Corfu and the nearby islands, curiously enough, seemed most attractive, especially when the possibility developed that he might be able to secure an appointment as Resident of one of the Ionian islands then under British protection (p. 412).

I do not believe there is a more beautiful place in the world & few more agreeable—the burthen of it to us would be that we could not (with the Residentship) have the perfectly quiet life, with ourselves & our own thoughts, which we prefer to any other, but if we have tolerable health there is not more of societyzing than would be endurable & if we have not, that would excuse us

(p. 420).

Isolation from English society, so long as it was shared with Harriet, would be no deprivation for him. To lose her would be the unthinkable calamity. That he might do something that would alienate her from him seems to have been a deeply rooted fear, a fear that once near the end of his long absence from her gained expression in a letter.

. . . I had a horrible dream lately—I had come back to her & she was sweet & loving like herself at first, but presently she took a complete dislike to me saying that I was changed much for the worse—I am terribly afraid sometimes lest she should think so, not that I see any cause for it, but because I know how deficient I am in self consciousness & self observation, & how often when she sees me again after I have been even a short time absent she is disappointed—but she shall not be, she will not be so I think this time—bless my own darling, she has been all the while without intermission present to my thoughts & I have been all the while mentally talking with her when I have not been doing so on paper

(p. 476).

The three years following Mill’s return to Harriet in June, 1855, seem to have been happy. Their health was somewhat improved and no further prolonged separations occurred. As a result, of course, we have little record in letters of their life together for this period. Only occasionally in these years were letters necessary, ordinarily brief ones. In the summer of 1856, accompanied by Helen and Algernon Taylor, they spent much of July and August Edition: current; Page: [xxxiv] in Switzerland and were apart only for a week while Mill took a walking tour of the French Jura. In September, 1857, and July, 1858, he made several botanizing expeditions, each of about a week’s duration. The longest separation during these years occurred in February, 1857, when Harriet went to Scotland to be near her daughter Helen, who in the preceding November had won her mother’s very reluctant consent to her undertaking a career as an actress. She was permitted to do so only on the understanding that the Taylor name should be concealed; she billed herself as Miss Trevor. To conceal Helen’s whereabouts, Harriet went to great pains; for all her protests against social convention, she wanted to avoid the stigma still attached to the theatrical profession and to preserve appearances for herself and her daughter.

The last years of Mill’s marriage continued the isolation that had characterized his life with Harriet. One notices the paucity of his correspondence in these years as well as of publication. Old friends, like the Grotes, were still kept at a distance; there is no record of the Mills’ entertaining any friends except Louis Blanc, who, as a radical French journalist, was outside the pale of respectable society. It seems more than likely that if Mill’s and Harriet’s plans for their retirement had been carried out, his isolation from English life would have continued. Not that he would have minded, for to the end Harriet was the all-sufficient centre of his existence. If Harriet could have lived, he would gladly have foregone the public fame he was later to achieve.

When she died in Avignon on November 3, 1858, the blow to him was all but overwhelming. To his friend and former colleague at the India House, W. T. Thornton, he wrote:

It is doubtful if I shall ever be fit for anything public or private, again. The spring of my life is broken. But I shall best fulfil her wishes by not giving up the attempt to do something useful, and I am not quite alone. I have with me her daughter, the one person besides myself who most loved her & whom she most loved, & we help each other to bear what is inevitable

(p. 574).

By the end of the month, before he and Helen returned to England, he had purchased a cottage at St. Véran near the Avignon cemetery in which Harriet was buried. The cottage was henceforth to be his and Helen’s real home, although they usually spent about half of each year in England in the house in Blackheath Park, which they retained until 1872. The tie that bound them to Avignon was, of course, the nearby grave of Harriet, which became virtually a shrine. For the rest of his life, whenever he was at Avignon, Mill visited the site for an hour each day.

The shared loss of Harriet brought Mill and Helen into an association that was to strengthen over the remaining years of his life. In many ways he became heavily dependent upon her. She seems to have accepted the burden willingly and without regret at giving up her hoped-for career in the theatre. From the first she devoted herself to Mill’s comforts, interests, and causes.

Edition: current; Page: [xxxv]

He soon became as dependent upon her as he had been upon Harriet. This is best seen in the series of his letters to Helen of January and February, 1860, apparently his only extended separation from her in his last fifteen years, occasioned by his return to Blackheath to consult his physicians and settle some business affairs, while she remained in Avignon. As in his letters to Harriet, he keeps Helen informed about the medical advice he has received (p. 660). He forwards certain letters to her (as formerly to Harriet) to consult her on the replies to be made (p. 661). In practical matters—for instance, when the walls in their Blackheath house begin to threaten collapse—he still depends on the woman of the house for instructions (pp. 662, 666). It is Helen who is responsible for the home at Avignon, at one point supervising the building of an addition. Under her skilful ministrations, the cottage at Avignon became not only a comfortable refuge from the society in which he had been in the past seldom at ease but also the place where he was henceforth to carry on most of his study and his writing.

In November, 1861, he wrote his friend Thornton:

Life here is uneventful, and feels like a perpetual holiday. It is one of the great privileges of advanced civilization, that while keeping out of the turmoil and depressing wear of life, one can have brought to one’s doors all that is agreeable or stimulating in the activities of the outward world, by newspapers, new books, periodicals, &c. It is, in truth, too self-indulgent a life for any one to allow himself whose duties lie among his fellow-beings, unless, as is fortunately the case with me, they are mostly such as can better be fulfilled at a distance from their society, than in the midst of it

(p. 747).

Mill was aware of the dangers to Helen in his virtual monopoly of her attention. Once when she had evidently complained of being depressed by the company of some women at Avignon, he wrote her:

It is a great happiness to me to be a support to you under depression, but it would be very painful to me to think that I should always continue to be the only one, as I must necessarily fail you some day & I can never be at ease unless, either by means of persons or of pursuits you have some other resource besides me, and I am sure my own darling [Harriet] would feel as I do

(p. 677).

Helen continued, however, to devote herself almost exclusively to Mill’s interests. By 1865, as has been pointed out in the Preface, she became so identified with him as to be able to write a good many of his letters for him. Of a letter on women’s suffrage to Mary Carpenter, he wrote:

. . . I should not like to be a party to its being printed with my name, because it was written (as is the case with no inconsiderable portion of my correspondence) by my step-daughter Miss Helen Taylor. Without this help it would be impossible for me to carry on so very voluminous a correspondence as I am at present able to do: and we are so completely one in our opinions and feelings, that it makes hardly any difference which of us puts them into words

(p. 1359).

Edition: current; Page: [xxxvi]

By her own admission, Helen was, like her mother before her, a severe critic of Mill’s writing. In turn, she reproached him for not criticizing her own writing severely enough. Mill thought her a good editor and trusted her judgment in the revision of his work. She worked zealously, “putting in words here, stops there; scratching through whole paragraphs; asking him to write whole new pages in particular places” where she thought the meaning unclear.4 Her relationship with Mill was such that there was “no amour propre to be hurt in his case or [hers].”

On at least one occasion she gave him a thorough dressing down for careless thinking and writing. When in a public letter to his election committee in the 1868 campaign for Parliament, Mill wrote effusively and somewhat evasively in defence of his support of the atheist Charles Bradlaugh, Helen, in a letter of November 12, 1868 (MS at LSE), sternly warned Mill that his “future power of usefulness on religious liberty” was being jeopardized by such letters, and that henceforth she would take charge of any correspondence about Bradlaugh: “Copy as literally as you can the letter I dictated (which I enclose) about Bradlaugh; and what you yourself said at the former election, about yourself.”5

Helen’s judgment in this instance was probably sound, but in other instances she seems to have brought Mill too much under her domination. When in 1869 the identity of the London Committee for Women’s Suffrage (originally Helen’s project) was threatened with a takeover by a Manchester group, Helen through Mill directed countermoves for the London Committee. In a series of letters to George Croom Robertson, Mill was led to advocate measures designed to eliminate dissident members from the Committee and to ensure that new members should be on the right side. This series of letters to Robertson is the only one in all his correspondence that reflects discredit upon Mill the advocate of freedom of opinion. Helen was so convinced of the rightness of her views that she became almost ruthless in her support of them.

Her evident domination of Mill in matters connected with the women’s suffrage movement did not escape the observation of one of Mill’s friends, Charles Eliot Norton, who wrote to Chauncey Wright on September 13, 1870:

I doubt whether Mill’s interest in the cause of woman is serviceable to him as a thinker. It has a tendency to develop the sentimental part of his intelligence, which is of immense force, and has only been kept in due subjection by his respect for his own reason. This respect diminishes under the powerful influence of his daughter, Miss Taylor, who is an admirable person doubtless, but is what, were Edition: current; Page: [xxxvii] she of the sex that she regards as inferior, would be called decidedly priggish. Her self-confidence, which embraces her confidence in Mill, is tremendous, and Mill is overpowered by it. Her words have an oracular value to him—something more than their just weight; and her unconscious flattery, joined with the very direct flattery of many other prominent leaders of the great female army, have a not unnatural effect on his tender, susceptible and sympathetic nature. . . .6

However dominant Helen may have become over Mill in his last years, her help to him in restoring his will to live and in developing new interests in the years immediately after Harriet’s death was of great importance. She encouraged him to make new friends, held frequent intimate dinner parties when they were at Blackheath, and shared his enthusiasm for new causes which he found he could advance better by ending the isolation he had enjoyed with Harriet. The first steps were taken somewhat reluctantly. He wrote to Helen in February, 1860, after meeting with Thomas Hare and Henry Fawcett:

The truth is that though I detest society for society’s sake yet when I can do anything for the public objects I care about by seeing & talking with people I do not dislike it. At the moment of going to do it, I feel it a bore, just as I do taking a walk or anything else that I must & ought to do when not wishing to do it. But I believe the little additional activity & change of excitement does me good, & that it is better for me to try to serve my opinions in other ways as well as with a pen in my hand

(p. 675).

The products of his pen, especially the shorter works published in 1859—On Liberty, Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform, and the first two volumes of his Dissertations and Discussions—were beginning to have evident effect upon public opinion. He noted that an article in the conservative Quarterly Review had borrowed from his pamphlet on parliamentary reform (p. 667), and he wrote Helen in February, 1860, that his influence could be detected in the likewise conservative Saturday Review, “for besides that they are continually referring to me by name, I continually detect the influence of some idea that they have lately got from the Dissertations. They must also get me plenty of readers, for they are always treating me & my influence as something of very great importance” (pp. 673-74). Early in 1863 he corrected an American reviewer who thought that his shorter works had been neglected in England in comparison with his treatises. The more recent works “have been much more widely read than ever those were & have given me what I had not before, popular influence” (p. 843). That influence had also markedly increased in America and was reenforced by his wholehearted support of the Northern cause during the Civil War.

His active participation in political and social movements revived in the Edition: current; Page: [xxxviii] early 1860’s and is reflected both in the addition of new friendships and correspondences and in the renewing of old. Only seven letters to Edwin Chadwick, his early friend, are extant for the years between 1849 and November, 1858; there are nearly a hundred in the years to 1873. The friendship with Grote, broken off during the years of Mill’s marriage, was renewed, as well as their correspondence. The exchange of letters with Gustave d’Eichthal, interrupted in 1842, began again in 1863. Although evidence is incomplete, it seems likely that the correspondence with Alexander Bain had also been almost wholly suspended during Mill’s marriage.

Among the new correspondents, John Elliot Cairnes became perhaps the one most highly valued by Mill. In the earlier years of their correspondence, they had little opportunity for personal contact, since Cairnes resided in Ireland until 1866, when he became Professor of Political Economy at University College, London; he eventually made his home in Blackheath. Reference has been made earlier here to Mill’s awareness that their exchanges constituted a “philosophic correspondence” between two who shared a “brotherhood in arms.” Cairnes is sometimes thought of as a disciple of Mill, but while he was in basic agreement with Mill on many of their doctrines in political economy, he often disagreed with the older man in details. His criticism was often of great help to Mill in the revision of his Political Economy, and on some questions, notably on those relating to Ireland, Cairnes supplied invaluable information. Mill, in turn, was often of similar assistance to Cairnes (see, for instance, his analytical letter on the French political economists, pp. 1664-65). It was Mill who first encouraged Cairnes to expand some lectures he had delivered in Dublin into his book The Slave Power, which became perhaps the most influential force in shaping British opinion in favour of the North in the American Civil War. The letters of the two men on the course of that war reveal their mutual concern for the antislavery cause; said Mill, “the battle against the devil could not be fought on a more advantageous field than that of slavery” (p. 835). Other interests the two shared were proportional representation, women’s rights, and the reform of education and land tenure in Ireland. More than any other of Mill’s correspondence, except perhaps that with Carlyle—the other side of which is largely available—both sides of the Cairnes-Mill series deserve publication together; for reasons of space, we have been able to publish only pertinent excerpts of Cairnes’s letters in footnotes.

Of the other new friends, Thomas Hare supplied Mill with a new cause—the representation of minorities or, as we now phrase it, proportional representation. Mill responded enthusiastically when Hare sent him a copy of his book on the subject: “You appear to me to have exactly, and for the first time, solved the difficulty of popular representation; and by doing so, to have raised up the cloud of gloom and uncertainty which hung over the futurity of Edition: current; Page: [xxxix] representative government and therefore of civilization” (pp. 598-99). Mill’s long-standing fear of the tyranny of the majority in a democratic society was now allayed by the possibility of the representation of minorities set forth in Hare’s plan. It became at once a favourite cause for Mill, since he regarded the plan “as the sheet anchor of the democracy of the future” (p. 765). Within a month after studying Hare’s book he reviewed it enthusiastically in Fraser’s Magazine, and he quickly revised his pamphlet on parliamentary reform to endorse the plan. Hare became one of Mill’s valued friends and a dependable ally in another favourite cause, women’s suffrage.

It was through Hare that Mill gained another friend, disciple, and correspondent—the blind political economist and politician Henry Fawcett, who was Mill’s junior by twenty-three years. He and Mill were united in their support of Hare’s plan, co-operation, conservation, women’s suffrage, and a number of other liberal causes. When Fawcett and Mill were both elected to Parliament in 1865, they continued their relationship as political allies. As a political economist, however, Fawcett remained more orthodox than Mill, who in his later years moved nearer to socialist views.

Less close was the relationship with Herbert Spencer, the extant correspondence with whom dates from November, 1858, after Spencer had written Mill for assistance in securing a position in the India civil service. Prior to that, the two had engaged in amicable controversy in their writings on the ultimate test of truth and Spencer’s “Universal Postulate.” Mill’s answers to Spencer were largely expressed in successive revisions of the Logic, beginning with the fourth edition. Mill wrote Spencer that his First Principles was “a striking exposition of a consistent and imposing system of thought; of which though I dissent from much, I agree in more” (p. 846). Mill at times expressed regret at having to criticize so often one whom he regarded as “a friend and ally” (p. 1061). To Bain he wrote, “He is a considerable thinker though anything but a safe one” (p. 901), certainly, in psychology, less sound than Bain (p. 540). Nevertheless Mill readily supported Spencer’s plans for a periodical, The Reader (pp. 974-75), and when Spencer announced that he was planning to suspend the publication of his Principles of Biology, Mill offered to guarantee a publisher against loss in carrying on with it (p. 1145). At first, they differed in degree rather than in principle on laissez-faire: Spencer opposed town ownership of public parks, but Mill thought they should be the property of the town (p. 609). Later, Mill’s increasing sympathy with socialism must have widened the differences between the two, but their extant correspondence supplies no evidence. Spencer, though early in favour of women’s rights, changed his mind and refused to join Mill’s campaign for women’s suffrage (p. 1299). Mill protested Spencer’s view that women often tyrannize over men by remarking that here as in a great many other cases “two negatives do not make an affirmative, or at all events two Edition: current; Page: [xl] affirmatives do not make a negative and two contradictory tyrannies do not make liberty” (p. 1614). Despite their differences, however, the two philosophers remained on friendly terms, and Spencer was invited from time to time to Mill’s home for dinner. Spencer after Mill’s death wrote an appreciative memorial article for the Examiner (reprinted as an Appendix in Spencer’s Autobiography).

A rare difficulty with a friend, arising out of a misunderstanding, is illustrated in the letters to the young classical scholar Theodor Gomperz, who had corresponded with Mill since 1854 about translating his works into German. When Mill and Helen Taylor had visited Gomperz in Vienna in the summer of 1862, the young man had fallen in love with Helen. Mill’s friendly letters inviting him to visit them in England were encouraging; he came to London the following winter, intending to propose to Helen. She and Mill, apparently not aware of Gomperz’s intentions, returned to Avignon before Gomperz made his hopes clear to either one. His request to be allowed to visit them was answered by Mill, apparently unconscious of Gomperz’s real purpose, on April 26, 1863 (Letter 607), in a rather ambiguous, cool manner. Gomperz took the letter to be a rejection not only by Helen as a suitor but also by the two of them as friends. His despair set off an incipient nervous breakdown, in which he conjured up enemies who must be maligning him. In succeeding letters Mill protested the sincerity of his great esteem and respect for Gomperz, and after returning with Helen to London early in June invited him to dinner. Mill was apparently slow to understand the real desire of Gomperz; in guarded but kindly terms (Letter 618), Mill advised him that he would “never willingly be the smallest obstacle” to his wishes but clearly doubted that there was any hope.

If you think fit to carry the matter farther, either by speech or writing,—even if only for the relief of your own feelings—, you will have my truest sympathy, as you have my sincere friendship and esteem.—We hope to see you and your friend to-morrow, and I hope, nothing that has passed will make any difference in your feelings towards us, who remain unchanged to you, and that you will not allow it to affect in any degree our future intercourse

(p. 863).

Gomperz for some time after leaving England still suffered from delusions of persecution, which Mill tried to dispel (see Letter 633). By fall, Gomperz was calmer and he eventually recovered fully. The correspondence with Mill was renewed; it continued on a friendly basis until Mill’s death.

In the 1860’s with the growth of Mill’s reputation came a marked increase in his influence among young men. His treatises on logic and political economy had become textbooks in the universities, helping to shape the thought as well as the methods of thinking of the younger generation. Among his shorter works, On Liberty became, as Frederic Harrison remarked, “a sort of gospel.” On perhaps none was his influence greater than on John Edition: current; Page: [xli] Morley, whose acquaintance Mill first made in 1865, when Morley at the age of twenty-seven was a writer for various periodicals. An anonymous article of his entitled “New Ideas” in the October 21, 1865, number of the Saturday Review attracted Mill’s attention, and when a friend identified the author of the piece, Mill wrote Morley: “Wherever I might have seen that article, I should have felt a strong wish to know who was its author, as it shows an unusual amount of qualities which go towards making the most valuable kind of writer for the general public” (p. 1113). Their friendship developed quickly and by the fall of 1867 when Morley travelled to America, Mill wrote to Emerson a letter of introduction for him (Letter 1137), praising his great capacity and promise as a writer. It is not possible to gauge from the letters to Morley here published the full extent of Mill’s influence on him, for we have succeeded in locating only eleven, some of them brief extracts. Morley himself, however, in his memorial article, “The Death of Mr. Mill” (FR, June, 1873) and in his Recollections (2 vols., New York, 1917), has recorded in generous terms his indebtedness to Mill as his intellectual father. D. A. Hamer in his John Morley (Oxford, 1968, pp. 16-32) has delineated skilfully Mill’s role in winning Morley over from Positivism. What we do have of Mill’s letters to him show Mill as an adviser on questions of public policy, particularly with reference to the Fortnightly Review, of which Morley became the editor in 1867. At one point in 1870, fearful that Morley’s health was in danger from overwork, Mill offered to take over temporarily the editorship of the Review. Their personal contacts were frequent: Morley was always welcomed to Blackheath. On March 5, 1873, Mill visited Morley for a day at his home, shortly before Mill was to leave England for the last time. Morley’s description of that day, reprinted in his Recollections (I, 66-67) from his memorial article of June, 1873, is the finest account available of Mill’s wide-ranging, stimulating conversation.

Of his influence on another promising young man, Lord Amberley, son of Lord John Russell, we again have little evidence in Mill’s letters. Only seven have been located for inclusion here. Fortunately, they can be supplemented by a number of Helen’s letters to Lady Amberley, preserved at LSE and in the Russell Archive at McMaster University. Mill and Helen first met Amberley at a dinner party at the Grotes’ on March 22, 1864, and Amberley called on them at Avignon the following June. The acquaintance ripened into friendship after Amberley’s marriage to Kate Stanley in 1865. Helen and Kate Amberley became close friends. The young couple visited Mill and Helen at Avignon and at Blackheath, and they in turn visited the Amberleys at their home near Tintern Abbey in England. Mill even agreed to become godfather for their second son, Bertrand Russell. Mill served as an adviser to Amberley both on his writings and on his political activities. Amberley, who was frequently attacked in The Times and other newspapers for his extreme Edition: current; Page: [xlii] radical opinions, won Mill’s sympathetic support, as is seen in his letter of November 30, 1868 (pp. 1494-95), discussing both his and Amberley’s defeat in the 1868 elections for Parliament.

In those same elections, the third of the young men who became one of Mill’s close friends, Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, won a seat for Chelsea. Mill was not then acquainted with Dilke. Their acquaintance began in 1869 with Mill’s writing Dilke a friendly but detailed criticism of his new book, Greater Britain, based on travels in many parts of the Empire (Letter 1693). Years later, Dilke himself wrote an account of their subsequent friendship and published excerpts from Mill’s letters to him.7 In this instance we presumably have most if not all of Mill’s letters, preserved in Dilke’s papers at the British Museum. The letters reveal Mill after his defeat in 1868 quite as deeply interested in current political questions as when he was in the House. Still a public figure, he found that his widened knowledge of the working classes contributed to his understanding of their problems. In the last four years of his life he increasingly took positions farther to the left than those he had occupied in his Parliamentary years. Long interested in land reform, he now moved to organize the Land Tenure Reform Association. His sympathies with the trades unions deepened, and his confidence in their leaders increased. He met regularly in 1869 with a committee organized to promote working-class representation in Parliament. He became an ardent advocate of universal free education, despite his earlier fears about state-maintained education. At Dilke’s invitation he and Helen became members of the Radical Club, a dining and discussion group started by Henry Fawcett, which met every other Sunday during the Parliamentary session. About half of the Club were radical or ultra-liberal members of Parliament. On occasion Mill advised Dilke on strategy to be followed in supporting the liberal causes they both advocated, including women’s rights. The two entertained each other at dinner from time to time, and it was to this intimate friendship that we owe the existence of the Watts portrait of Mill (see Letter 1780). Dilke persuaded Mill to sit for the portrait, paid the artist, and eventually bequeathed it to the City of Westminster.

Although Mill in his last years added such young men as Morley, Amberley, and Dilke to the roster of his friends and correspondents, he still maintained his correspondence with a number of his longtime friends. The oldest of these friendships was with Edwin Chadwick, dating back to their Benthamite days. Mill’s earliest extant letter to Chadwick is dated February 19, 1827; the last, December 27, 1872. Over those forty-five years the two were apparently in close touch, for many of the letters, especially in the earlier years, are brief notes concerning matters previously discussed in Edition: current; Page: [xliii] person. Chadwick relied upon Mill as a reader of his many reports as a reformer of the poor laws, sanitation, education—sometimes it seems as a reformer of almost everything. Mill always admired the matter of Chadwick’s reports and usually supported the proposed reforms; the writing of the reports, however, Mill time after time found in need of reorganization and even of grammatical correction. In the 1860’s when Chadwick published a cheap paper for the working classes, The Penny Newsman, Mill and Helen Taylor contributed articles. The best testimony to Mill’s admiration and respect for Chadwick’s abilities is to be found in the unremitting efforts he made to fulfil Chadwick’s ambition to be elected to Parliament. Mill thought him admirably equipped for service there. In 1868 he characterized Chadwick as

one of the organizing & contriving minds of the age; a class of minds of which there are very few, & still fewer who apply those qualities to the practical business of government. He is, moreover, one of the few persons who have a passion for the public good; and nearly the whole of his time is devoted to it, in one form or another

(p. 1432).

When Mill himself was being considered for the representation of Westminster, he constantly put forth the case for Chadwick, in preference to himself, and later, when in Parliament, Mill was always looking for possible openings for him. What appeared to be the best chance for Chadwick came in the 1868 campaign when it appeared possible that he might unseat Edward Bouverie, an Adullamite Liberal who for twenty-five years had represented the Scottish constituency of Kilmarnock. Because Bouverie had openly attacked Gladstone and the Liberal party the preceding spring, Mill thought him not entitled to Liberal support and instead warmly endorsed Chadwick. Bouverie charged Mill with sowing dissension in the party, and turned over to The Times for publication his exchange of letters with Mill (see Letters 1299 and 1306). In the event, Chadwick, who had campaigned vigorously and at considerable expense to himself, lost badly to Bouverie. Mill had to answer a bitter letter from Mrs. Chadwick protesting his encouraging her husband to run (Letter 1335). Neither her protest nor his own defeat deterred Mill, as his later letters to Chadwick reveal, from continuing to support his friend.

We have dwelt at some length on the foregoing correspondences with both earlier and later friends because they are among the most revealing of Mill’s character and personality. Other series, however, deserve at least brief mention here. Readers who wish to pursue any of the various series will find convenient the separate Index of Correspondents in Vol. XVII. Mill’s continuing, widely ranging interest in developments outside England is demonstrated in such series as those to his friends Gustave d’Eichthal and Charles Dupont-White on developments in France, both before and after the Franco-Prussian Edition: current; Page: [xliv] war of 1870; to Pasquale Villari, on the long struggle for Italian independence; to Henry S. Chapman in New Zealand, on affairs in that remote portion of the Empire; and to Charles Eliot Norton in America on post-Civil War problems. The two series of his letters to working-class correspondents, John Plummer and William Wood, reveal his essential kindness; without any trace of condescension he lent them books, gave them advice, and sought their support for his favourite causes, especially that of women’s rights. The letters to Alexander Bain and to Rowland G. Hazard provide valuable supplements to Mill’s philosophical and metaphysical writings. The letters to W. T. Thornton, his long-time colleague at the India House, display not only their warm friendship but also their continuing debates on such economic questions as the wage-fund doctrine and trades unions and such philosophic questions as utilitarianism. Letters to William E. Hickson and John Chapman, successively editors of the Westminster Review, reveal not only his continuing interest in the radical review with which he had been closely associated in its earlier years, but also his readiness to contribute to its financial support. Letters to his publishers, John W. Parker and his successor William Longman, show Mill the author fully aware of the value of his publications and determined to obtain a fair return for them, but also willing to sacrifice to the public good his own profits by making available inexpensive People’s editions of his works.

We have chosen in this Introduction to emphasize the value of the many series of Mill’s letters in gaining an understanding of his life and personality, rather than to attempt to provide an analysis of his views on the many questions he explored in both letters and published works. The latter have been subjected, and are still being subjected, to searching analysis in many books and articles, for Mill continues to be one of the most significant of Victorian writers for the twentieth century. Some of his letters express views not to be found in his published writings, views that often seem surprisingly modern. Well known, of course, is his dedicated support of women’s rights. Less well known are his concern for the environment (see Letter 909), his eventual acceptance of universal education provided by the State (see Letter 1534), and his foresighted opinions on the Negro problem in America (see Letter 871). For the reader who wishes to pursue these and other topics in the letters, we have provided a detailed subject index. It is our hope that readers will share the pleasure that the editors have had not only in observing Mill engage with ideas but also in obtaining new insights into the nature of the man himself. The whole correspondence is the life of the man, “and above all the chief part of his life, his inner life.”

Edition: current; Page: [xlv]

Abbreviations and Short Titles

Am.: American

Arsenal: Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Paris

Autobiog.: John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, ed. with an Introduction and Notes by Jack Stillinger (Boston, 1969)

LSE: The British Library of Political and Economic Science, at the London School of Economics and Social Science

Leeds: Brotherton Library, University of Leeds

Logic: John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive; being a connected view of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, 2 vols., London, 1843. The references are to the 8th edition, London, 1872

Motley: The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley, ed. George William Curtis, New York, 1889

NAPSS: National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, Transactions, 1857-84, 1886

NLI: The National Library of Ireland, Dublin

NLS: The National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh

NLW: The National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth

NYP: New York Public Library, New York City, New York

No. Am. Rev.: The North American Review, 1815-1940

Osborn Collection, Yale: The James Marshall and Marie-Louise Osborn Collection, Yale University Library

Packe: Michael St. John Packe, Life of John Stuart Mill, London, 1954

Parl. Papers: Sessional Papers printed by order of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, London, 1849-

Pol. Econ.: John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, With Some of Their Application to Social Philosophy, London, 1848. The references are to the last edition revised by JSM (the 7th in 1871) available in the edition of Sir W. J. Ashley, London, 1909, and as Vols. II and III of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. J. M. Robson, Toronto, 1965

Edition: current; Page: [xlvii]

Principles: John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, ed. J. M. Robson, Vols. II and III of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Toronto, 1965. References have been made to this edition only for information not available in other editions of Pol. Econ.

You might well feel that the handwriting would be “worth having”, but instead of there being “little said” the excessive sweetness & love in this Edition: current; Page: [4] exquisite letter makes it like something dropt from heaven. I had been literally pining for it & had got into a state of depression which I do not think I shall fall into again during this absence—When I left you my darling & during all the journey back3 I was full of life & animation & vigour of wish & purpose, because fresh from being with you, fresh from the immediate influence of your blessed presence & of that extreme happiness of that time which during this last week or fortnight I have hardly been able to conceive that I ever had—much less that I ever should have again—but this angel letter has begun to bring back happiness & spirit & I again begin to feel the holiday & journey & that blessed meeting as if they would really be—& to feel capable also of being & of doing something in the meanwhile which I had entirely ceased to feel. But I am very anxious darling to hear about the lameness4 & to find that it has got better. I have a very strong feeling about the obstinacy of lamenesses from the troublesome persistency of this of mine5—though it is certainly better—but still it does not go away, nor allow me to take more than a very little exercise & I feel the effect a little now in the general health—the sight too has not quite recovered itself yet, which is an additional teaze, but I am not uneasy about it. The only piece of news I have is that Austin6 called yesterday. When he came & during all the time he Edition: current; Page: [5] staid there was a Frenchman with me, a man named Guerry,7 a statistical man whom Col. Sykes8 brought to me—the man whose maps of France with the dark & light colours, shewing the state of crime, instruction &c. in each department you may remember. He was [wanting?] to shew me some other maps & tables of his & to ask me about the “logic” of his plans so he did not go away—& the talk was confined to general subjects, except that Austin said he was going to prepare a new edition of his book on jurisprudence9 on a much enlarged plan & should wish very much to consult me on various matters connected with the application of induction to moral science. Of course I could not refuse & indeed saw no reason for doing so—but as this will lead to his coming again, sending MSS. & so on it both gives an occasion & creates a necessity for defining the relation I am to stand in with respect to them. He said he had after much difficulty & search taken a house at Weybridge & that he liked the place, but he did not (I have no doubt purposely) say anything about wishing that I would visit him there, or anywhere. His talk was free & éclairé as it always is with me, much of it about that new publication of Guizot10 (which I have not read) of which he spoke very disparagingly & defended communists11 & socialists against the attacks contained in it & said he saw no real objection to socialism except the difficulty if not impracticability of managing so great a concern as the industry of a whole country in the way of association. Nothing was said about her12 or about the copy of the Pol. Ec.13 but it is necessary to prendre un parti. What should it be? I am reading Macaulay’s book:14 it is in some Edition: current; Page: [6] respects better than I expected, & in none worse. I think the best character that can be given of it is that it is a man without genius, who has observed what people of genius do when they write history, & tries his very best to do the same, without the amount of painful effort, & affectation, which you might expect, & which I did expect from such an attempt & such a man. I have no doubt like all his writings it will be & continue popular—it is exactly au niveau of the ideal of shallow people with a touch of the new ideas—& it is not sufficiently bad to induce anybody who knows better to take pains to lower people’s estimation of it. I perceive no very bad tendency in it as yet, except that it in some degree ministers to English conceit15—only in some degree, for he never “goes the whole” in anything. He is very characteristic & so is his book, of the English people & of his time. I am rather glad than not that he is writing the history of that time for it is just worth reading when made (as he does make it) readable: though in itself I think English one of the least interesting of all histories—(French perhaps the most & certainly the most instructive in so far as history is ever so).

As to Jane’s2 money—there is certainly a strong inducement to transfer it to the French funds, as it would about double the income & if invested as proposed in her own name & that of the trustees it would be as exclusively in her own control as at present & she could receive the interest. It can only be done by sending out a power of attorney to be executed by you. But it seems to me that now when there seems so much chance of your not being able to live in England where alone you could act, it would be very desirable to put in a third trustee along with the present two, both for Jane’s and Mary’s3 property. I will suggest this to them & ascertain the proper way of doing it. The buying of French stock, if you determine to do it, ought not Edition: current; Page: [7] to be done through Ferraboschi,4 but it can be done by an agent here & this I can see to if it is ultimately decided to do it.

Many thanks for the Guizot2 which I have had read to me (for I am obliged to spare my sight which is ailing a good deal).3 I find it far inferior to what I expected—so vague and general as to be almost intangible, and it hardly comes into collision at all with what I think it necessary to say, in answer to Brougham.4 I do not think I can make any use of it on this occasion. The article5 however is in itself a complete answer to all such diatribes. It is finished, except revision, which the state of my sight alone retards. I will however, “make an effort” (vide chap.1 of Dombey)6 and let you have it soon.

Yours ever truly,

J. S. Mill

I should like to know who wrote the article on Channing7 if it is no secret.

I received your dear letter 11 on Saturday & this morning the first instalment of the Pol. Ec.2 This last I will send again (or as much of it as is necessary) when I have been able to make up my mind about it. The objections are I think very inconsiderable as to quantity—much less than I expected—but that paragraph, p. 248, in the first edit. which you object to so strongly & totally,3 is what has always seemed to me the strongest part of the argument (it is only what even Proudhon says against Communism)4—& as omitting it after it has once been printed would imply a change of opinion, it is necessary to see whether the opinion has changed or not—yours has, in some respects at least, for you have marked strong dissent from the passage that “the necessaries of life when secure for the whole of life are Edition: current; Page: [9] scarcely more a subject of consciousness”5 &c. which was inserted on your proposition & very nearly in your words. This is probably only the progress we have been always making, & by thinking sufficiently I should probably come to think the same—as is almost always the case, I believe always when we think long enough. But here the being unable to discuss verbally stands sadly in the way, & I am now almost convinced that as you said at first, we cannot settle this 2d edit. by letter. We will try, but I now feel almost certain that we must adjourn the publication of the 2d edit. to November.6 In the new matter one of the sentences that you have cancelled is a favorite of mine, viz “It is probable that this will finally depend upon considerations not to be measured by the coarse standard which in the present state of human improvement is the only one that can be applied to it.”7 What I meant was that whether individual agency or Socialism would be best ultimately—(both being necessarily very imperfect now, & both susceptible of immense improvement) will depend on the comparative attractions they will hold out to human beings with all their capacities, both individual & social, infinitely more developed than at present. I do not think it is English improvement only that is too backward to enable this point to be ascertained for if English character is starved in its social part I think Continental is as much or even more so in its individual, & Continental people incapable of entering into the feelings which make very close contact with crowds of other people both disagreeable & mentally & morally lowering. I cannot help thinking that something like what I meant by the sentence, ought to be said though I can imagine good reasons for your disliking the way in which it is put. Then again if the sentence “the majority would not exert themselves for anything beyond this & unless they did nobody else would &c”8 is not tenable, then all the two or three pages of argument which precede & of which this is but the summary, are false, & there is nothing to be said against Communism at all—one would only have to turn round & advocate it—which if done would be better in a separate treatise & would be a great objection to publishing a 2d edit. until after such a treatise. I think I agree in all the other remarks. Fourrier [sic]9 if I may judge by Considérant10 is perfectly right about women Edition: current; Page: [10] both as to equality & marriage—& I suspect that Fourier himself went further than his disciple thinks prudent in the directness of his recommendations. Considérant sometimes avails himself as Mr Fox11 used, of the sentimentalities & superstitions about purity, though asserting along with it all the right principles. But C. says that the Fourrierists are the only Socialists who are not orthodox about marriage—he forgets the Owenites,12 but I fear it is true of all the known Communist leaders in France—he says it specially of Buchez,13 Cabet,14 & what surprises one in Sand’s15 “guide, philosopher & friend” of Leroux.16 This strengthens one exceedingly in one’s wish to prôner the Fourrierists besides that their scheme of association seems to me much nearer to being practicable at present than Communism.—Your letter was very delightful—it was so very pleasant to know that you were still better as to general health than I knew before, & that the lameness also improves though slowly. I am very glad I did right about Herbert17—his conduct on Xmas day & his not writing even to say that he is going to America seem like ostentation of heartlessness & are only as you say to be explained by his being a very great fool (at present) & therefore influenced by some miserably petty vanities & irritabilities. Their not sending George’s18 letter directly is very strange. The pamphlet19 has gone to Hickson—I had thought of sending one of the separate copies to L. Blanc.20 Whom else should it go to? To all the members of the Prov. Gov. I think, & as it will not be published till April I had better take the copies to Paris with me & send them when there as it saves so much uncertainty & delay. I did see that villainous thing in the Times21 & noticed that the American had used those words.

I despatched yesterday to the dear one an attempt at a revision of the objectionable passages.2 I saw on consideration that the objection to Communism on the ground of its making life a kind of dead level might admit of being weakened (though I think it never could be taken away) consistently with the principle of Communism, though the Communistic plans now before the public could not do it. The statement of objections was moreover too vague & general. I have made it more explicit as well as more moderate; you will judge whether it is now sufficiently either one or the other; & altogether whether any objection can be maintained to Communism, except the amount of objection which, in the new matter I have introduced, is made to the present applicability of Fourierism.3 I think there can—& that the objections as now stated to Communism are valid: but if you do not think so, I certainly will not print it, even if there were no other reason than the certainty I feel that I never should long continue of an opinion different from yours on a subject which you have fully considered. I am going on revising the book: not altering much, but in one of the purely political economy parts which occurs near the beginning, viz. the discussion as to whether buying goods made by labour gives the same employment to labour as hiring the labourers themselves, I have added two or three pages of new explanation & illustration which I think make the case much clearer.4—It is certainly an unlucky coincidence that the winter which you have gone away from should be so very mild a one here: on Sunday I found the cottage gardens &c. as far advanced as they often are only in the middle of April; mezereons, hepaticas, the white arabis, pyrus japonica &c. in the fullest flower, the snow ball plant very much in leaf, even periwinkles & red anemones fully out: daffodils I saw only in bud. If it is not checked it will be I think an even earlier spring than the very early one two or three years ago. I shall be able to benefit by Edition: current; Page: [12] it more than I expected in the way of country walks on Sundays although the dimness of sight, slight as it is, interferes not a little with the enjoyment of distant scenery—as I found in that beautiful Windsor Park last Sunday. If it is very fine I think I shall go some Sunday & wander about Combe—it is so full of association with all I wish for & care for. As I have taken care to let my ailments be generally known at the I[ndia] H[ouse] I have no doubt it will be easy to get a two or three months holiday in spring if we like: this indeed if I return quite well would make any holiday in the after part of the year impracticable, but need not prevent me from taking two or three days at a time occasionally during a séjour at Ryde or any other place & thus making it a partial holiday there—Unless, which I do not expect, a long holiday soon should be necessary for health, the question ought to depend entirely on what would best suit you—which is quite sure to be most desirable for me—I am in hopes that parties in France are taking a more republican turn than they seemed likely to do—if Napoleon Bonaparte coalesces with Lamartine’s party for election purposes there will be a much larger body of sincere republicans in the new assembly than was expected.5 The Roman republic & the Tuscan Provisional Govt I am afraid will end in nothing but a restoration by Austria & a putting down of the popular party throughout Italy.6 I was sorry to see in the feuilleton of the National7 a very bad article on women in the form of a review of a book by the M. Légouvé8 who was so praised in La Voix des Femmes.9 The badness consisted chiefly in laying down the doctrine very positively that women always are & must always be what men make them—just the false assumption on which the whole of the present bad constitution of the relation rests. I am convinced however that there are only two things which tend at all to shake this nonsensical prejudice: a better psychology & theory of human nature, for the few; & for the Edition: current; Page: [13] many, more & greater proofs by example of what women can do. I do not think anything that could be written would do nearly so much good on that subject the most important of all, as the finishing your pamphlet—or little book rather, for it should be that.10 I do hope you are going on with it—gone on with & finished & published it must be, & next season too.—Do you notice that Russell in bringing forward his Jew Bill,11 although he is actually abolishing the old oaths & framing new, still has the meanness to reinsert the words “on the true faith of a Christian” for all persons except Jews, & justifies it by saying that the Constitution ought not avowedly to admit unbelievers into Parliament.—I have seen very little of the Chairman & Dep. Chairman12 lately—as to avoid the long staircase I have communicated with them chiefly through others but now being released from restraint I shall take an early opportunity of speaking to Galloway about Haji.13 I have seen nothing more of Haji any more than of Herbert.14 [torn page]

I attach importance to most of the notes,2 since when I am charging Brougham with misrepresentation of what Lamartine said,3 it will not do to Edition: current; Page: [14] bid the reader trust to my translations—and the passages from Tocqueville4 being cited as evidence to matters of fact, ought to be given in the original. You however must judge what is best for your review. You kindly offered me some separate copies—I should not desire more than 50, but in these I would like to have the notes preserved and it would not be necessary for that purpose to set them up in smaller type. If the types are redistributed I would willingly pay the expense of recomposing. I cannot imagine how the printer could commit the stupid blunder of putting those notes with the text. As a heading,5 “The Revolution of February and its assailants” would do. In the separate copies I should like to have a title page, which might run thus: “A Vindication of the French Revolution of 1848 in reply to Lord Brougham and others.”

What a nuisance it is having anything to do with printers—Though I had no reason to be particularly pleased with Harrison,2 I was alarmed at finding that Parker3 had gone to another, & accordingly, though the general type of the first edition is exactly copied, yet a thing so important as the type of the headings at the top of the page cannot be got right—you know what difficulty we had before—& now the headings, & everything else which is in that type, they first gave much too close & then much too wide, & say they have not got the exact thing, unless they have the types cast on purpose. Both the things they have produced seem to me detestable & the worst is that as Parker is sole owner of this edition I suppose I have no voice in the matter at all except as a point of courtesy. I shall see Parker today & tell him that I should have Edition: current; Page: [15] much preferred waiting till another season rather than having either of these types—but I suppose it is too late now to do any good—& perhaps Parker dragged out the time in useless delays before, on purpose that all troublesome changes might be avoided by hurry now. It is as disagreeable as a thing of the sort can possibly be—because it is necessary that something should be decided immediately without waiting for the decision of my only guide & oracle. If the effect should be to make the book an unpleasant object to the only eyes I wish it to please, how excessively I shall regret not having put off the edition till next season. I have had the proof of the pamphlet,4 all but the last few pages. There seems very little remaining in it that could be further softened without taking the sting out entirely—which would be a pity. I am rather against giving away any copies, at least for the present, in England—except to Louis Blanc to whom I suppose I should acknowledge authorship. He has not come near me—I see he is writing in sundry Communist papers of which there are now several in London.5 As a heading in the review I have thought of “The Revolution of February & its assailants”—it does not seem advisable to put Brougham’s name at the top of the page—& “the Revolution of February” or anything of that kind itself would be tame, & excite no attention. There is no fresh news from George6 nor any incident of any kind except that Mr Fox has sent me (without any letter) four volumes of his lectures to the working classes,7 the last volume of which (printed this year) has a preface in which he recommends to the working classes to study Polit. Economy8 telling them that they will see by “the ablest book yet produced on this subject” that it is not a thing against them but for them—with some other expressions of compliment he quotes two passages, one of them the strongest there is in the book about independence of women,9 & tells them in another place though rather by inference than directly that women ought to have the suffrage.10 He speaks in this preface of “failing health” & as if he did not expect either to write or speak in public much more: this may mean little, or very much. I feel now as if the natural thing, the thing to be expected, was to hear of every one’s death—as if we should outlive all we have cared for, & yet die early.

Did you notice that most bête & vulgar say by Emerson in a lecture at Boston, about the English? It is hardly possible to be more stupidly wrong—& Edition: current; Page: [16] what sort of people can he have been among when here?11 The Austrian octroyé federal constitution12 seems as bad as anything pretending to be a constitution at all now dares to be—the only significant circumstance in it on the side of democracy being that there is no House of Lords nor any mention of nobility or hereditary rank. Here the sort of newspaper discussion which had begun about Sterling’s13 infidelity seems to have merged in a greater scandal about a book by Froude,14 a brother of the Froude who was the originator of Puseyism15—This book was reviewed in the last Spectator16 I sent to you & that review was the first I had heard & is all I have seen of the book—but the Herald & Standard17 are abusing the man in the tone of Dominican Inquisitors on account of the strong declarations against the inspiration of the Bible which he puts into the mouth of one of his characters, obviously as they say thinking the same himself—It appears the Council of University College had been asked to select a schoolmaster for Hobart Town & had chosen Froude from among a great many candidates & probably some rival defeated candidate has raised this stir.18 It all, I think, does good, but one ought to see occasionally the things that are written on Edition: current; Page: [17] such matters, in order not to forget the intensity of the vulgar bigotry, or affection of it, that is still thought to be the thing for the Christian readers of newspapers in this precious country. The Times is quite gentlemanlike in comparison with those other papers when they get on the ground of imputed infidelity or anything approaching to it. I suppose they overshoot their mark, but they would scruple nothing in any such case.

[⅔ of folio 1r cut away] the old way, or [rest of line cut away] has the advantage of taking [rest of line cut away] Toulouse, but I suspect the means of conveyance by it are much slower & more precarious, till we reach Bourges or Châteauroux where we join the railway. I think from what has been in the papers that the whole or nearly the whole of the [⅔ of page cut away as above].

The bargain with Parker2 is a good one & that it is so is entirely your doing—all the difference between it & the last being wholly your work, as well as all the best of the book itself so that you have a redoubled title to your joint ownership of it. While I am on the subject I will say that the difficulty with the printer is surmounted3—both he & Parker were disposed to be accommodating & he was to have the very same type from the very same foundry today—in the meantime there has been no time lost, as they have been printing very fast without the headings, & will I have no doubt keep their engagement as to time. You do not say anything this time about the bit of the P[olitical] E[conomy]—I hope you did not send it during the week, as if so it has miscarried—at the rate they are printing, both volumes at once, they will soon want it.

I was wrong to express myself that way about the Athenians,4 because without due explanations it would not be rightly understood. I am always apt Edition: current; Page: [18] to get enthusiastic about those who do great things for progress & are immensely ahead of everybody else in their age—especially when like the Athenians it has been the fashion to run them down for what was best in them—& I am not always sufficiently careful to explain that the praise is relative to the then state & not the now state of knowledge & of what ought to be improved feeling. I do think, however even without those allowances, that an average Athenian was a far finer specimen of humanity on the whole than an average Englishman—but then unless one says how low one estimates the latter, one gives a false notion of one’s estimate of the former. You are not quite right about the philosophers, for Plato did condemn those “barbarisms”.

I regret much that I have not put in anything about Palmerston into that pamphlet5—I am almost tempted to write an express article in the Westr in order to make him the amende. As you suggested I wrote an article on Russell’s piece of meanness in the Jew Bill6 & have sent it to Crowe7 from whom I have not yet any answer—there has been no time hitherto fit for its publication—the time will be when the subject is about to come on again in Parlt. But I fear the article, even as “from a correspondent” will be too strong meat for the Daily News, as it declares without mincing the matter, that infidels are perfectly proper persons to be in parliament. I like the article myself. I have carefully avoided anything disrespectful to Russell personally, or any of the marks, known to me, by which my writing can be recognized.

If I meet Fleming8 again or am again assaulted on any similar point I will reply in the sort of way you recommend—I dare say the meeting with F. was accidental as it was just at the door of Somerset House where he is assistant secretary to the Poor Law Board & just at the time when he would probably be coming out. Ever since I have kept the opposite side.

The Pol. Ec. packet came on Monday for which a thousand thanks. I have followed to the letter every recommendation. The sentence which you objected Edition: current; Page: [19] to in toto of course has come quite out.2 In explanation however of what I meant by it—I was not thinking of any mysterious change in human nature—but chiefly of this—that the best people now are necessarily so much cut off from sympathy with the multitudes that I should think they must have difficulty in judging how they would be affected by such an immense change in their whole circumstances as would be caused by having multitudes whom they could sympathize with—or in knowing how far the social feelings might then supply the place of that large share of solitariness & individuality which they cannot now dispense with. I meant one thing more, viz. that as, hereafter, the more obvious & coarser obstacles & objections to the community system will have ceased or greatly diminished, those which are less obvious & coarse will then step forward into an importance & require an attention which does not now practically belong to them & that we can hardly tell without trial what the result of that experience will be. I do not say that you cannot realize and judge of these things—but if you, & perhaps Shelley & one or two others in a generation can, I am convinced that to do so requires both great genius & great experience & I think it quite fair to say to common readers that the present race of mankind (speaking of them collectively) are not competent to it. I cannot persuade myself that you do not greatly overrate the ease of making people unselfish. Granting that in “ten years” the children of a community might by teaching be made “perfect” it seems to me that to do so there must be perfect people to teach them. You say “if there were a desire on the part of the cleverer people to make them perfect it would be easy”—but how to produce that desire in the cleverer people? I must say I think that if we had absolute power tomorrow, though we could do much to improve people by good laws, & could even give them a very much better education than they have ever had yet, still, for effecting in our lives anything like what we aim at, all our plans would fail from the impossibility of finding fit instruments. To make people really good for much it is so necessary not merely to give them good intentions & conscientiousness but to unseal their eyes—to prevent self flattery, vanity, irritability & all that family of vices from warping their moral judgments as those of the very cleverest people are almost always warped now. But we shall have all these questions out together & they will all require to be entered into to a certain depth, at least, in the new book3 which I am so glad you look forward to as I do with so much interest.—As for news—did you see in the Times Mrs Buller’s death? I Edition: current; Page: [20] suspect it was there the very day I wrote last. I have heard nothing of the manner or occasion of it, & had not supposed from anything I had heard before, that there was any likelihood of it. So that volume is closed now, completely.4 I called the other day at Charles Fox’s5 shop to ask the meaning of Mr Fox’s illness & C.F. said he has constant pains in his side which are either heart disease or merely nervous but which are made much worse by public speaking or any other excitement & that that is the reason he so seldom speaks in the H[ouse] of C[ommons]. It is probably mere nervous pain therefore, & not dangerous, but it shews him to be out of health. There were letters from George6 yesterday of three weeks later date: his report is that he is neither worse nor better. He thinks that he coughs about six or seven times an hour through the 24 hours. He still writes as not at all out of spirits—one expression he uses is that he wants nothing to make him happy but to be able to go up into the mountains, & to have a better prospect of the future—I think he means a better avenir in case he ultimately recovers—but he seems persuaded that his disease is seldom cured or stopped. I shall write to encourage him, for I am convinced it is often stopped though hardly ever cured, & I do not yet despair of his case.

Crowe’s answer was “I shall be but too happy to print the article.7 The Jews Bill is put off till after Easter, but if you will allow me I will insert it immediately.” There is nothing like kicking people of the D[aily] N[ews] sort it appears. I answered telling him if he thought it would be of as much use now as about the time when the bill comes on by all means to print it now. It has not yet made its appearance. The printing of the 2d edit.8 goes on satisfactorily in all respects. Last Sunday I went by railway to Watford & walked from there to town, indeed more, for the direct road being by Stanmore I turned off before getting there, to Harrow, thus lengthening the walk 3 or 4 miles. I think I must have walked 20 miles, & almost all of it at a stretch, with occasional short resting on a stile. I confess however that the miles between Harrow & London were excessively long, but I felt no kind of inconvenience the next day or since from the walk. The lameness is now no obstacle at all—the only obstacle is general weakness, as compared with my state when in perfect health. The sight remains the same.9 I look forward to Saturday with immense pleasure because there is always a letter—adieu with every good wish.

[9/10 of first folio cut away] short too—as a [rest of line cut away] surprised to hear of [rest of line cut away] been some, very often for the last fortnight—but it has never lain. Today it is a sunny [9/10 of page cut away as above] The alteration I had made in that sentence of the P[olitical] E[conomy] was instead of “placard their intemperance” to say “placard their enormous families”—it does not read so well, but I think it may do, especially as the previous sentence contains the words “this sort of incontinence”—but your two sentences are so very good that as that sheet is not yet printed, get them in I must & will.2—Are you not amused with Peel about Ireland? He sneers down the waste lands plan,3 two years ago, which the timid ministers, timid because without talent, give up at a single sarcasm from him, & now he has enfanté a scheme containing that & much more than was then proposed—& the Times supports him4 & Ireland praises him. I am extremely glad he has done it—I can see that it is working as nothing else has yet worked to break down the superstition about property—& it is the only thing happening in England which promises a step forward—a thing which one may well welcome when things are going so badly for the popular cause in Europe—not that I am discouraged by this—progress of the right kind seems to me quite safe now that Socialism has become inextinguishable. I heartily wish Proudhon dead however—there are few men whose state of mind, taken as a whole, inspires me with so much aversion, & all his influence seems to me mischievous except as a potent dissolvent which is good so far, but every single thing which he would substitute seems to me the worst possible in practice & mostly in principle. I have been reading another volume of Considérant5 lately published—he has got into the details of Fourierism, with many large extracts from Fourier himself. It was perhaps necessary to enter into details in order to make the thing look practicable, but many of the details are, & all appear, passablement ridicules. As to their system, & Edition: current; Page: [22] general mode of thought there is a great question at the root of it which must be settled before one can get a step further. Admitting the omnipotence of education, is not the very pivot & turning point of that education a moral sense—a feeling of duty, or conscience, or principle, or whatever name one gives it—a feeling that one ought to do, & to wish for, what is for the greatest good of all concerned. Now Fourier, & all his followers, leave this out entirely, & rely wholly on such an arrangement of social circumstances as without any inculcation of duty or of “ought,” will make every one, by the spontaneous action of the passions, intensely zealous for all the interests of the whole. Nobody is ever to be made to do anything but act just as they like, but it is calculated that they will always, in a phalanstere, like what is best. This of course leads to the freest notions about personal relations of all sorts, but is it, in other respects, a foundation on which people would be able to live & act together. Owen keeps in generals & only says that education can make everybody perfect, but the Fourierists attempt to shew how, & exclude, as it seems to me, one of the most indispensable ingredients.

6What a bathos to turn from these free speculations to pinched & methodistical England. It is worth while reading the articles in newspapers about Froude & Sterling7 to have an adequate idea what England is. The newspaper talk on the subject having the irresistible attraction of personality still continues, & I have within this week read in shop windows leading articles of two weekly newspapers, the Church & State Gazette8 & the English Churchman,9 keeping it up. They have found the splendid mare’s nest of the “Sterling Club”.10 I remember the foundation of the said club by Sterling himself, very many years before his death—soon after he began to live permanently out of London. Though called a club it had neither subscription nor organization, but consisted in an agreement of some 12 or 20 acquaintances of Sterling, the majority resident University people, that there should be one day in a month when if any of them liked to dine at a place in Lincoln’s Inn Fields he would have a chance of finding some of the others. I let them put me down as one, & went there, I think three times, with Sterling himself & at his request, in order to pass an evening in his company—the last time being, I believe, in 1838. A few weeks ago I was reminded of the existence of the thing by receiving a printed list of members, in which I was put down Edition: current; Page: [23] with many others as honorary—it has greatly increased in numbers, is composed (in more than one half) of clergymen including two bishops, Thirlwall11 & Wilberforce,12 & I suppose it has organized itself with a regular subscription, as it has removed to the Freemason’s & has begun sending circulars previous to each dinner. One of these lists fell into the hands of the “Record”13 newspaper & combining this with Hare’s Life of Sterling it charges Hare, Maurice,14 Trench,15 these bishops, & innumerable others with founding a society to honour & commemorate an infidel, & joining for that purpose with persons strongly suspected of being no better than infidels themselves, such as Carlyle & me. It is very amusing that those people who take such care to guard their orthodoxy get nothing by it but to be more bitterly attacked. However it shews what I did not suppose, that it required some courage in a church dignitary to write about a heretic even in the guarded way that Hare did.—

Yesterday Nichol16 called on me—whom I had not seen since 1840—he is in town for some days or probably weeks & is about to publish a book on America where he has been travelling.17 As he is a walking man I am going to have a country walk with him tomorrow—my other Sunday walks have been alone. I have always thought him a man of whom something might be made if one could see enough of him—I shall perhaps be able to judge now if my opinion was right, but at all events his book will shew. He has this in his favour at least which is the grand distinction now that he is intensely forward-looking—not at all conservative in feeling but willing to be very destructive & now adieu with every possible wish.

I send you Mr Lombe’s2 letter as you desire. Who can he be that pays for articles at £100 each & talks so confidently of sending one or two members to Parliament? I, at least, can take no part in what he proposes, for I do not agree with him. I do not think the coast blockade3 so ineffectual as it is represented, & at all events, to abandon it would be understood throughout the world as the abandonment of our anti-slavery policy & by its moral effect would I believe increase the amount of slavery tenfold. I do not mean that it should be persevered in for ever, but I would not give it up until something more effectual for the purpose is actually in operation.—I hope you are in better health & that your excursion to Paris will set you up. My ramble4 has done me good but has not cured my principal ailment.5

You have given me six months2 to answer all your questions. I think you ought to allow me six volumes too; for if the questions occupy so many pages, what must the answers? I could give, no doubt, some sort of replies to most of your queries in a few sentences, but they would not be such as could be satisfactory either to you or to myself. However your letter is a sort of challenge which I am unwilling to refuse, though aware that what I say will give scarcely the faintest idea of how much there is to say & though I do not undertake to carry on the discussion any further. If I did, each answer would suggest further questions & these would require longer answers, till I would be led into writing a treatise on each point—which though if I live I may probably do—at any rate, I had rather defer until I can do it thoroughly & in a shape for permanent use.

1st. Your explanations do not at all clear up, to my apprehension, what I think the inconsistency of blending high moral praise with the strongest language of moral reprobation.3 You say that certain states of mind are sinful in the greatest degree, yet that for those states the individual may possibly be not at all responsible. I can understand that persons may hold false & pernicious opinions conscientiously & may have defects or peculiarities of character which both in themselves and in their consequences are extremely undesirable, yet to which their own wishes or voluntary conduct having in no way contributed, they are not morally accountable for them. But to call anything a sin & yet say that the sinner is not accountable for it seems to me if the word sin means anything, a direct contradiction. It is you who appear to be chargeable with what my opinions are usually charged with, viz. confounding the distinction between moral badness & mere aberration in a person or thing from the ideal perfection of the kind of being it belongs to. Edition: current; Page: [26] I recognise two kinds of imperfections: those which come independently of our will & which our will could not prevent, & for these we are not accountable; & those which our will has either positively or negatively assisted in producing & for which we are accountable. The former may be very hurtful to ourselves & offensive to others but in us they are not morally culpable. The latter are. You ride over this (as it seems to me) perfectly definite distinction by the ambiguous word sin, under which a third class of defects of character finds entrance which is supposed to unite both attributes—to be culpable & ultra-culpable although the person thus morally guilty cannot help it. This seems to me to exemplify the unmeaningness of the word sin which if it is anything other than the theological synonym of “morally wrong” is a name for something which I do not admit to exist.

2d. On the subject out of which this discussion grew, population, marriage, &c.4 we differ so utterly that there seems not even a chance of our doing ourselves or each other any good by discussing it. Our ideas of moral obligation on the subject are completely incompatible, the repugnancy goes down to the very root of the subject & I entertain quite as uncomplimentary an opinion of your mode of regarding these questions as you can possibly do of mine. Two sentences will give some little notion of the wideness of our divergence. You think that the legality or illegality of an act makes a difference (not in its being right or wrong, socially speaking—but) in its purity or impurity—& you think that a man can without forfeiting his title to respect, live in the habitual practice of that which he feels to be degrading to him. I, on the contrary, cannot conceive anything more gross & grovelling than the conceptions involved in the first supposition & the conduct described in the second. They appear to me the extreme of animalism & sensuality in the fullest sense of the bad meaning of those terms.

I will say nothing more on this subject except to correct a mistake you have made about my opinions on population. I do not know where you find that on my shewing the evils of over-population are in some distant future. On the contrary, I hold with Malthus that they are, & have been throughout history, almost everywhere present, & often in great intensity.

3d. You ask what are the natural instincts that civilisation has strikingly & memorably conquered. I answer, nearly all. E.g. the instinct of taking a thing which we very much wish for, wherever we find it—food, for instance, when we are hungry. The instinct of knocking down a person who offends us if we are the strongest. As a rather different example take the eminently artificial virtue of cleanliness—think what savages are, & what violence must be done to the natural man to produce the feelings which civilised people Edition: current; Page: [27] have on this point—take again all the delicacies respecting bodily physicalities which savages have not a vestige of but which in the artificialised human being often equal in intensity any human feelings, natural or artificial.

4th. As to the opinion expressed in the Logic,5 that miracles are evidence of a revelation only to those who already believe in a God or at least in supernatural beings. What I meant is this. We can never know that what is presented to us as a miracle, is so. The proof can only be negative, viz. that we do not know any mode in which the thing can have been produced by natural means; & what is this worth when we are so ignorant of nature? Two years ago a man who by passing a handkerchief across a person’s face could plunge him into a sort of extasy during which a limb could be cut off without pain would have given apparent evidence of miraculous powers equal to any saint in the calendar. You ask, but what if the man himself, being morally trustworthy, affirms that it is a miracle? I answer, this would in many cases convince me that he himself believed it to be one; but that would weigh for absolutely nothing with me, as it is the easiest & commonest fact in the world, especially in an unscientific state of the human mind, that people should sincerely ascribe any peculiar & remarkable power in themselves to divine gift, & any unexpected prompting of their own minds to a divine communication. If the spectator did not previously believe in supernatural powers an apparent miracle will never give him, I conceive, any reason for believing in them, while he is aware that there are natural powers unknown to him; but if he does already believe in supernatural powers he has the choice between two agencies both of which he feels assured really exist & he therefore may & ought to consider which of the two is the most probable in the individual instance.

Next as to Xtianity. You need not have supposed any inclination in me to speak with irreverence of J[esus] C[hrist]. He is one of the very few historical characters for whom I have a real & high respect. But there is not, to me, the smallest proof of his having ever said that he worked miracles—nor if he did, should I feel obliged either to believe the fact or to disbelieve his veracity. Respecting St Paul I have a very different feeling. I hold him to have been the first great corrupter of Xtianity. He never saw Christ, never was under his personal influence, hardly ever alludes to any of his deeds or sayings, seems to have kept aloof from all who had known him & in short, made up a religion which is Paulism but not, me judice, Xtianity. Even St Paul however, though I would by no means answer for his sincerity, never that I know of speaks of any particular miracle as having been wrought by him—he only speaks generally of signs & wonders which may mean anything. The author of the “Acts” does speak of particular miracles, & those like the miracles of the Gospel I no more believe than I do the miraculous cure mentioned by Edition: current; Page: [28] Tacitus as wrought by Vespasian.6 I regard them simply as part of the halo which popular enthusiasm throws round its heroes. The argument of the Horae Paulinae7 scarcely aims at proving more than that St Paul really wrote the epistles ascribed to him, which in respect to all but one or two of them, no competent enquirer, I believe, seriously doubts (the case is very different from that of the Gospels), & that the Acts are in part an authentic record of St. Paul’s life, which I see no reason to disbelieve, no more than that Livy is in part a true history of Rome & Herodotus of the countries of which he treats. Since I am on the subject I will add that I cannot conceive how, except from deeprooted impressions of education, any reasonable person can attach value to any attestations of a miracle in an age when everybody was ready to believe miracles the moment they were attested, & even enemies instead of denying the facts, ascribed them to diabolical agency. I would say to such a person, only read any book which gives a really living picture of, let us say, the Oriental mind of the present day. You there see hundreds of millions of people to whose habits of thought supernatural agency is of such everyday familiarity that if you tell them any strange fact & say it is miraculous, they believe you at once, but if you give them a physical explanation of it, they think you a juggler & an imposter. Add to this that until long after the time Xtianity began you hardly find a trace even in the best minds of any regard for abstract veracity—any feeling which should prevent a teacher from deceiving the people for their good. Plato, the highest expression probably of the ethical philosophy of the ancient world & the elevated nature of whose purposes it is impossible to doubt, thought it the duty of legislators to pretend a supernatural origin for their precepts,8 as all very early legislators seem to have done.

These are I think the more important topics of your letter. As to the condition of the labouring people as compared with former times, I incline to think them worse off as to quantity tho’ not quality of food than three centuries ago, and better off as to clothing & lodging—but there is a sad dearth of facts that can be relied on. You speak of Macaulay9 and D’Israeli10Edition: current; Page: [29] as authorities—anything that Macaulay says, is not matter of observation but of inference & argument of which one must judge for oneself. As for D’Israeli & his Sibyl [sic], I cannot imagine its being received as testimony, or supposed to be anything but a commonplace story.

I am afraid I cannot be of any use to you in recommending treatises on astronomy as it is many years since I read any of the more deeply mathematical sort. The most recent that I have read is that of Biot,11 which is probably by this time superseded. I have never read Laplace’s Mécanique Céleste,12 but have understood that it is the most obscure, & by no means the best, of the treatises on the subject. Most probably Pontécoulant13 will answer your purpose. Nobody I believe ever hazarded a conjecture when the supposed condensation of the sun’s atmosphere began nor whether it is indefinitely progressive or forms part of a cycle including periods of expansion as well as of contraction. I believe it is thought, though I know not on what grounds, that the throwing off of new planets has ceased. It is, I believe, mathematically demonstrable that the supposed changes could not alter the centre of gravity of the solar system & therefore (as it cannot alter the total mass of matter) would make no difference in the orbits of the planets or in any of the other effects of gravitation.

The opinion that all axioms are founded on the evidence of experience, rests to my own mind on the most complete proof but I always knew it would be very difficult to bring home that evidence to those trained in a different school of psychology from mine. Accordingly I have failed to make you see (I do not mean admit) the main & characteristic points of my doctrine on the subject, viz. that our not being able to conceive a thing is no evidence of the thing’s being in itself impossible. You understand me correctly to say that the absence of any law of causation in some distant star, not only is, for anything we know, perfectly possible but is even conceivable—but you ask, is it conceivable that in such a star two straight lines may inclose a space? I say, certainly it is not conceivable, but that does not prove to me that the thing is impossible, since the limitation may be in our faculties, & in the all-pervadingness, to us, of a contrary experience. Again, “the possibility of proving geometrical first principles by merely mental experimentation”14 seems to me to arise from previous experience that in this particular department what is true of our mental images is true also of their originals, which I illustrated in the Logic by the case of a daguerreotype.15

Edition: current; Page: [30]

I agree with you that ratiocinative logic may usefully be taught separately from inductive & belongs indeed to an earlier stage in mental instruction.

It is so long since I read Butler16 & I have so little faith in opinions the grounds of which we are not constantly revising, that I will not venture to express an opinion of him. I know that my father thought the argument of the “Analogy” conclusive against deists with whom alone Butler professes to argue & I have heard my father say that it kept him for some time a believer in Xtianity. I was not prepared by what I had heard from him for so contemptuous an opinion as is indicated in some passages of the “Fragment”17 though he never can have thought highly of Butler except by comparison with other writers of the same general tendency in opinion.

I am convinced that competent judges who have sufficient experience of children will not agree in the opinion you express that they have a natural idea of right or duty. I am satisfied that all such ideas in children are the result of inculcation & that were it not for inculcation they would not exist at all except probably in a few persons of pre-eminent genius & feeling.

I have followed your example in expressing my meaning without polite circumlocutions, as I believe you really wish that I should—& any appearance of egotism or dogmatism in what I have said, you will, I hope, not attribute to my thinking an opinion important because it is mine, but will remember that what you asked me to do was to tell you as a matter of fact, what my opinions are, & that too on subjects on which they are strong, & have been much & long considered. I am dear Sir, very truly yours

J. S. Mill

I should have answered your letter weeks ago had I not been out of town on account of health.18

You must have been expecting to hear from me long before this, on the Edition: current; Page: [31] subject of your article2 for the Edinburgh & indeed I have delayed writing much too long, although the reason of the delay was the hope of being able to write something more certain about the article than I am even yet able to do. I must mention to you in the first place that I am not on terms of direct communication with the Edinburgh since the death of Napier3 & the accession of the present editor Empson.4 I was therefore obliged to have recourse to an indirect channel & I thought Buller5 the best as it enabled me at the same time to say a word in the hope of forwarding your views with respect to V[an] D[iemen’s] L[and]. But when I called at Buller’s with the article he was at Paris & when he returned he fell ill & you know the catastrophe. As soon as I could get back the article from among his papers I applied to Senior6 who sent it to Empson; I having first, under the power you gave me, made the few alterations & omissions which seemed to me desirable. Empson wrote to Senior saying that the article was interesting & he should like to insert it, but could not do so before the July number & then must make some alterations & suppressions; this I ventured, in your name, to express assent to. Two or three weeks ago, however, (I being at the time out of town) Empson returned the article to Senior saying that he had tried to alter the article as he had proposed doing, but had not been able to satisfy himself, & added a question, Would Senior’s unknown friend (meaning me, for I had not authorized S. to mention me in connexion with the article) try to set the article in order for the October number. This is the state which the thing is now in. I shall try to do what he says, but I am so little aware of what his objections are to the article as it stands, that it is very probable I may not be able to remove them. When I am able to tell you more I will. As to your claims to promotion,7 I can contribute nothing but good wishes—my interest Edition: current; Page: [32] with Lord Grey8 or any other members of the government is less than none, it is negative, & is never likely to be otherwise.—Thanks for your full particulars about New Zealand affairs in all departments & for your last letter about the earthquake.9 I hope it will not turn out that such serious natural convulsions are to be of common occurrence—as it is I fear even what you have had will be likely to check the recourse of capital & even of labour to the colony. In Europe we are as thickly as ever in the midst of another sort of convulsions—in which the despots10 for the present appear to be getting the best of it & will probably succeed by the aid of Russian troops in putting down democracy for a time everywhere but in France,—the democratic spirit in Germany11 & even in Italy,12 seems quite too strong to be put down & it is sure to resume its ascendancy even but it is terrible to think of a noble people like the Hungarians being cut to pieces13 & their country made another Poland of.14 The whole problem of modern society however will be worked out, as I have long thought it would, in France & nowhere else. I do not know if I have written to you or not since the extraordinary election of Louis Bonaparte as President of the Republic by six or seven millions of votes against a million & a half,15 an election the more remarkable as the million & a half included not only all the intelligence of France but most of what is called the property, a large proportion both of the bourgeoisie & of the grands propriétaires having voted for Cavaignac.16 The election was carried by the vast mass of the peasantry, & it is one of the most striking instances in history of the power of a name—though no doubt dislike of the republic helped the effect, the peasantry being too ignorant to care much about forms of government & being irritated by the temporary increase of taxation which the revolution17 rendered necessary & terrified by the anti-property doctrines of Edition: current; Page: [33] Proudhon & the Socialists—I may say of Proudhon only, for the Socialists, even the Communists, do not propose to take away any property from any one, any more than Owen does. The result is that France having had the rare good fortune of finding two men in succession of perfectly upright intentions, enlightened principles & good sense, Lamartine & Cavaignac, has chosen to reject both & be governed by a stupid, ignorant adventurer who has thrown himself entirely into the hands of the reactionary party,18 &, but that he is too great a fool, would have some chance by these means of making himself emperor.19 But the elections just ended have much disappointed that party, for though they will have a majority20 in the new assembly, the number of the Montagne or red republican party (who are now all socialists) have increased fourfold, while the moderate republican party also musters a considerable number, though many of its chiefs have been turned out. There will probably be no outbreak like that of June21 (unless to repel some attempt at a coup d’état) for the democrats & even the socialists will now think they have a better chance of gaining their objects by the peaceable influence of discussion on the minds of the electors—but what turn things will take it is hard to say, the French people being divided into two violent parties, the furious friends of “order” & the Socialists, who have generally very wild & silly notions & little that one can sympathize with except the spirit & feelings which actuate them. The party who attempt to mediate between these two extremes as the Provisional Government strove to do, is weak, & is disliked by both parties, though there are some signs that all sections of republicans intend to pull together now that they are all in opposition. The chance for France & Europe entirely depends now on the respite which has been obtained & on the possibility of the maturing by this middle party, of rational principles on which to construct an order of society which, retaining the institution of private property (but facilitating all possible experiments for dispensing with it by means of association) shall studiously hurl all inequalities out necessarily inherent in that institution. As an example I may mention the grand idea of the Provisional Government, that of making all education, even professional, gratuitous,22 which as they proposed it, is liable to the grave objection of throwing all education virtually into the hands of the government, but means might I think be found to purge the scheme of this most serious fault. A great source of hope for France lies in the fact that the most Edition: current; Page: [34] powerful & active section of the Socialists are the Fourierists headed by Considérant, who are much the most sensible & enlightened both in the destructive, & in the constructive parts of their system, & are eminently pacific. On the other hand there is the great danger of having a firebrand like Proudhon, the most mischievous man in Europe, & who has nothing whatever of all that I like & respect in the Socialists to whom he in no way belongs.—We certainly live in a most interesting period of history. As for England, it is dead, vapid, left quite behind by all the questions now rising. From the Dukes to the Chartists, including all intermediate stages, people have neither heads nor hearts, & yet they all hug themselves & think they are the only people who are good for anything, & all their public men, even Roebuck,23 have the sentiment.

As I understand from my friend Mr Bisset2 that Charles Villiers3 has been interesting himself to obtain some government employment for him in the way of his profession & has spoken or is likely to speak to you on the subject, I think it but justice to Bisset to add any testimony which I can give in his favour, to that which you will have received from Villiers. I have known Bisset for many years during which he has struggled hard and meritoriously to make his way in his profession (as a conveyancer) supporting himself meanwhile as a writer, & though he has had little success I believe it to be neither from want of ability nor of legal learning. Coulson,4 whose pupil he Edition: current; Page: [35] was, can speak to both points & it is much in his favour that he was selected to edit the recent edition of Jarman on Wills5 (not the right technical title I am afraid) which I understand he did very creditably. Coulson feels I know considerable interest in him & thinks him competent for many useful public duties & in particular “an excellent person to collect digest & judge of information on any legal subject.” Coulson thinks him not a likely person to succeed in the captation of attornies, & advises him, I believe, rather to look for some permanent appointment than to professional work to which his own wishes at present seem to point. There are many situations which he would be very fit for but he has no means of knowing when any are vacant or in what quarter an application would have any chance. He has the feelings and habits of a gentleman & may be depended on for conscientious care & pains taking in all he undertakes.

He was for a short time employed under the original Poor Law Commission & Senior probably could say something about him though he came very little into direct contact with him.

I have no wish to enter into any discussion with Mr. Lombe.2 It is useless discussing any such point with a man who thinks it is the intention of nature that one race of mankind should be helots working for another. Besides, I am certain he is an interested party. No one, who was not, would select this question of all others as the one to spend considerable sums of money in agitating about.

Edition: current; Page: [36]

I do not sympathize in the sentimental pity for the officers and sailors. It is their own choice. They are not, like poor conscripts, compelled to serve. In time of war indeed it is different as long as impressment lasts.

What a droll mistake Adams3 has made about the Palace of Art—mistaking the poet’s “soul” for a flesh and blood heroine.

Your letter dated two months ago has from various causes remained too long unanswered, & your present of the volume of your collected writings,2 unacknowledged. I was already acquainted with some though not all of your pamphlets,3 & had seen enough in them to convince me that you had found the true explanation of the poverty & non improvement of the Irish tenantry.4 The letting of the land, by a virtual auction, to competitors much more numerous than the farms to be disposed of, whose numbers are constantly increasing, & who have no means of subsistence but by obtaining land on whatever terms, ensures their giving up to the landlord the whole produce of the land minus a bare subsistence, & putting themselves completely in his power by promising even more than that. And as you have so Edition: current; Page: [37] well pointed out it is impossible while this system lasts that the people can derive benefit from anything which would otherwise tend to improve their condition—the tenant being a mere channel through which the benefit, whatever it may be, is diverted into the pocket of the landlord. Your proposal of a valuation & a perpetuity is the only one that I am aware of which goes to the root of the mischief. When I published the treatise5 of which you make such flattering mention, I thought that a perpetual tenure, either rentfree, or at a fixed low rent, conferred on those who would occupy & reclaim waste lands, would be sufficient to meet the evil. I thought that the distribution of the waste lands in permanent property among the class of small farmers would draft off so many of the competitors for the other lands, as to render the competition innocuous, the rents moderate, the country tranquil, & by removing the obstacle to the introduction of English capital enable the peasantry to earn at least English wages.6 And I still believe that the plan might have produced these effects if tried before the enactment of the present Poor Law.7 That law however has commenced a train of events which must terminate, I think, in the adoption of something equivalent to your plan. Men who could not learn from reason, are learning from experiment, that neither English buyers nor English farmers will take land in Munster or Connaught subject to the liabilities of the poor law. If therefore the land is to be cultivated at all, it must be by the Irish peasantry; & as these, whether ejected or not, cannot now be starved while the landlord has anything to give them, he will probably in the end be obliged to bribe them to work by giving them an interest in the land.

I lament that exertions so promising as those in which you were engaged have been cut short by personal misfortunes. I trust there is yet a chance of your being one day in a condition to renew those exertions, in which I believe you would now find many more coadjutors than before. The progress of events & of opinion has left such political economists as those whose dicta you relate, very far behind, & their authority will soon stand as low as it deserves. My object in writing a treatise on Pol. Economy was to rescue from the hands of such people the truths they misapply, & by combining these with other truths to which they are strangers, to deduce conclusions capable of being of some use to the progress of mankind. The sympathy you express in Edition: current; Page: [38] this attempt induces me to request your acceptance of a copy of the book, which I hope will reach you shortly after you receive this letter.

I hope you have better health than you had some time ago. I wish I could see you in a way of life more congenial. But there never was, except during the middle half of the eighteenth century, a time so unpropitious for one of your opinions, feelings, and temperament. One cannot help often—though convinced that those were on the whole worse times than these—wishing for the age of Savonarola.2

I return the Resolutions2 with some notes on two or three of them. You will see that with the exception of the 8th Res. which seems to me objectionable in toto, the fault I find with the plan is that it is a kind of compromise—since it admits as much religious instruction as is given in the Irish Edition: current; Page: [39] National Schools3 & not only admits, but demands what is called moral instruction.

The stupid doctrines which alone the plan excludes generally lie dead in the minds of children having hardly any effect, good or bad—the real harm being done by the inculcation of the common moralities. I know that compromises are often inevitable in practice, but I think they should be left to the enemy to propose—reformers should assert principles & only accept compromises.

I am very glad to see you active, & on so important a subject. There is something like a stir beginning again among the liberal members of parliament which will give a chance of a good following to whoever takes the lead in anything useful.

[Notes appended to the above letter]

3rd Resolution. I would omit the words including moral instruction. What the sort of people who will have the management of any such schools, mean by moral instruction, is much the same thing as what they mean by religious instruction, only lowered to the world’s practice. It means cramming the children directly with all the common professions about what is right & wrong & about the worth of different objects in life, and filling them indirectly with the spirit of all the notions on such matters which vulgar-minded people are in the habit of acting on without consciously professing. I know it is impossible to prevent much of this from being done—but the less of it there is the better, & I would not set people upon doing more of it than they might otherwise do, by insisting expressly on giving moral instruction.

If it were possible to provide for giving real moral instruction it would be worth more than all else that schools can do. But no programme of moral instruction which would be really good, would have a chance of being assented to or followed by the manager of a general scheme of public instruction in the present state of people’s minds.

5th Res. The National Schools of Ireland are, I believe, the best among existing models; but they are unsectarian only in a narrow sense. They are not unsectarian as between Christian & non-Christian. They are not purely for secular instruction. They use selections from the Bible & therefore teach the general recognition of that book as containing the system & history of creation & the commands of an allwise & good being. Any system of instruction which does this contains I conceive a great part of all the mischief done by a purely Church or purely Dissenting Education. Is it not better even in Edition: current; Page: [40] policy to make the omission altogether of religion from State Schools the avowed object.

8th Res. This seems to be very objectionable. If any public body were empowered to prevent a person from practising as a teacher without a certificate of competency, no person believed to think or act in opposition to any of the ordinary standards, or who is supposed to be an “unbeliever,” would ever be allowed to teach. No Socialist or even Chartist would have (especially in times of political alarm) the smallest chance. No such person could keep even a private school, much less be a teacher in a public one. I have never seen the body that I would trust with the power of pronouncing persons incompetent for this or any other profession. Neither do I see what purpose this resolution is intended to answer. No doubt, persons grossly incompetent do try to get a living as schoolmasters, but the remedy for this is to provide better ones, & the other resolutions ensure this in every district. Besides this evil would soon take care of itself, if the mass of people had even a little education.

Edition: current; Page: [41]

1850

I am very sorry to hear of your feverish attack. I suspect there is something in the state of the air very favorable to such attacks where other causes cooperate such as those which have been affecting you. Many thanks for the trouble you have taken about Webb.2 It will be fortunate for me if Mr Wilson Saunders3 has soon done with it.

I have made a few pencil marks on this (rather important) sheet but they are of a very trifling character.

on arriving this morning I found quite unexpectedly the volume of Webb2—for which I am extremely obliged to you. It will be of great use to me & I only wish there were more of it. I am on the whole glad Edition: current; Page: [42] that I have not had it until I had gone through the families contained in it, as one ought to use such books to verify rather than to supersede the regular mode of determining plants.

I hope you continue improving & that you will soon be about again. The interruption to all that you were engaged in was most vexatious—but this illness, brought on by overwork, must be used as an additional reason for making a stand against your present position

I am very sorry that you are not yet recovered from your attack. You will see on this sheet some queries of mine in pencil & some alterations by Prideaux2 in ink—but as I have told him, I think his alteration in p. 450 proceeds on a misconception of your meaning—which however will be of use as shewing some want of clearness in the expression.3 What he has inserted, too, is very much to the purpose, though what I think you meant, is still more so.

Thanks dearest dearest angel for the note—what it contained was a really important addition to the letter2 & I have put it in nearly in your words, which as your impromptu words almost always are, were a hundred times better Edition: current; Page: [43] than any I could find by study. What a perfect orator you would make—& what changes might be made in the world by such a one, with such opportunities as thousands of male dunces have. But you are to me, & would be to any one who knew you, the type of Intellect—because you have all the faculties in equal perfection—you can both think, & impress the thought on others—& can both judge what ought to be done, & do it. As for me, nothing but the division of labour could make me useful—if there were not others with the capacities of intellect which I have not, where would be the use of them I have—I am but fit to be one wheel in an engine not to be the self moving engine itself—a real majestic intellect, not to say moral nature, like yours, I can only look up to & admire—but while you can love me as you so sweetly & so beautifully shewed in that hour yesterday, I have all I care for or desire for myself—& wish for nothing except not to disappoint you—& to be so happy as to be some good to you (who are all good to me) before I die. This is a graver note than I thought it would be when I began it—for the influence of that dear little hour has kept me in spirits ever since—thanks to my one only source of good.

I have to acknowledge your communication of January 9th inclosing a statement of the principles & objects of a proposed Association, which you do me the honour of wishing that I should join, & inviting me to communicate any observations which the paper suggests to me.

In some of the objects of the Address, & in some of the doctrines laid down in it, there is much that I agree with. But the question is, I think, more complicated than the writer seems to consider it. The present mode of legal relief to the destitute2 was not adopted on any such absurd ground as that “it is Edition: current; Page: [44] better that the unemployed should be idle than usefully employed,” or better that the funds expended in supporting them should be consumed without a return, than with a return. The “principle” acted on was that by selecting employment for paupers with reference to its suitableness as a test for destitution, rather than to its productiveness, it was possible to make the conditions of relief sufficiently undesirable, to prevent its acceptance by any who could find private employment. But if the state, or the parish, provides ordinary work at ordinary wages for all the unemployed, the work so provided cannot be made less desirable, & can scarcely be prevented from being more desirable, than any other employment. It would therefore become necessary either that the state should arbitrarily limit its operations (in which case no material advantage would arise from their having been commenced) or that it should be willing to take the whole productive industry of the country under the direction of its own officers.

You will perhaps say that these consequences could only arise if the work required in exchange for public pay were (as it usually has been) merely nominal; & that you rely, for preventing such a consummation, on the principle on which you justly lay so much stress, that of payment proportionate to the work done. I confess I have no confidence that this principle could be so applied as to have the effect intended. It was tried (as I have understood) in the Irish Relief Works3 & in the Ateliers Nationaux4 at Paris, & with the result which might be expected—viz. that if the rate of payment by the piece was sufficiently liberal not to overtask the feeble and unskilful, it enabled the strong & experienced workman to earn so much with perfect ease, that all other employment was rapidly deserted for that held out by the public.

My own opinion is that when productive employment can be claimed by every one from the public as a right, it can only be rendered undesirable by being made virtually slave labour; & I therefore deprecate the enforcement of such a right, until society is prepared to adopt the other side of the alternative, that of making the production & distribution of wealth a public concern. I think it probable that to this, in some form (though I would not undertake to say in what) the world will come, but not without other great changes—certainly not in a society composed like the present, of rich & poor; in which the direction of industry by a public authority would be only substituting a combination of rich men, armed with coercive power, for the competition of individual capitalists.

Edition: current; Page: [45]

At present I expect very little from any plans which aim at improving even the economical state of the people by purely economical or political means. We have come, I think, to a period, when progress, even of a political kind, is coming to a halt, by reason of the low intellectual & moral state of all classes: of the rich as much as of the poorer classes. Great improvements in Education (among the first of which I reckon, dissevering it from bad religion) are the only thing to which I should look for permanent good. For example, the objects of your Association, & those of the promoters of Emigration, even if they could be successful in putting an end to indigence, would do no more than push off to another generation the necessity of adopting a sounder morality on the subject of overpopulation—which sounder morality, even if it were not necessary to prevent the evils of poverty, would equally be requisite in order to put an end to the slavery to which the existing state of things condemns women; a greater object, in my estimation, both in itself & in its tendencies, than the mere physical existence either of women or men. I am sorry to see in your Circular the ignorant & immoral doctrine that the “separation”5 enforced in the workhouse is among the sources of “degradation” & diminished “self-respect” for the pauper. I consider it an essential part of the moral training, which, in many ways (but in none more important) the reception of public relief affords an opportunity of administering: & the improvement of which would be a reform in Poor Law management, better worth aiming at, I think, than that which you propose.

I am sensible of the compliment paid to me by the promoters of the “Poor Law Reform Association” in their willingness to make some modifications in the terms of their Address if I should thus be enabled to concur in it. But my differences from them are too wide to admit of cooperation. My objection is not founded on any mischief which I expect from the practical Edition: current; Page: [46] recommendations in the Address, but on what seems to me the merely superficial character of everything that it professes or contemplates. The plan will, I conceive, have no effect at all on the permanent & hereditary paupers, who form the great mass of the pauperism of the country. Manufacturing operatives are, as you say, often thrown out of employment in great numbers at once, by the vicissitudes of trade, & to find the means during such intervals, of employing them so as to reproduce their subsistence, would be a useful thing doubtless, but I cannot think that it would amount to any social reform; it seems to me more the concern of the ratepayers than of any one else. Of course I make no objection to considering & discussing the means of doing this, but it is not a thing in which I feel called upon to take a part.

It is not necessary that I should comment on the many things in your letter with which I entirely disagree; I will merely observe on a matter of fact, that though I am aware that piece work was not the original principle either of the Irish relief works or of the ateliers nationaux,2 I have a most distinct recollection that in one or other, & I believe in both, it was had recourse to on failure of the original plans, & with the effects which I mentioned.

By an odd coincidence I have no sooner sent you Thornton’s article2 than I have to send you another proposition from another new contributor. Stephen Spring Rice3 (the eldest son of Lord Monteagle) has written a paper Edition: current; Page: [47] “On the study of Irish History” which he would like to publish in the Westminster4 and has requested me to ask you to write a line to him saying whether you are willing to take it into consideration. He is a practical & lively writer & has a great deal to say, worth attending to, on Irish subjects. His address is the Custom House (he being a Commissioner). He does not know where to send the article, but this he will probably learn from yourself.

I cannot say what the opinions in the article on Ireland2 are, as I have not seen it—I know however that Mr. Spring Rice is of the same opinion with me about the Irish Poor Law3 and not disinclined to peasant properties.

I did not intend absolutely to pledge myself to an article for the Westr on the subject you proposed. I should not be disposed to undertake an article Edition: current; Page: [48] limited to the question of divorce. I should treat that as only one point in a much more extensive subject—the entire position which present laws & customs have made for women. My opinions on the whole subject are so totally opposed to the reigning notions, that it would probably be inexpedient to express all of them & I must consider whether the portion of them which the state of existing opinion would make it advisable to express, would be sufficient to make the undertaking a suitable or satisfactory one to me. To decide this I must turn over the subject in my mind for some little time.2

When I have made up my mind I will write again—in the meantime you must not count on me for the July number.

If I decide to undertake it I shall either not accept the pay, or employ it in some mode which will further the objects of the article.

Many thanks for your paper,2 which I shall read with the same care as I have read your larger treatise.3 If you will send here the copy which Edition: current; Page: [49] you destine for Mr Ballantyne4 I think I can get it put into the Company’s packet.

You will tell me my own dearest dearest love, what has made you out of spirits. I have been put in spirits by what I think will put you in spirits too—you know some time ago there was a Convention of Women in Ohio to claim equal rights2—(& there is to be another in May)3 well, there has just been a Convention for the same purpose in Massachusetts4—chiefly of women, but with a great number of men, including the chief slavery abolitionists Garrison,5 Wendell Phillips,6 the negro Douglas7 &c. The New York Tribune contains a long report8—most of the speakers are women—& I never remember any public meetings or agitation comparable to it in the proportion which good sense bears to nonsense—while as to tone it is almost like ourselves speaking—outspoken like America, not frightened & servile like England—not the least iota of compromise—asserting the whole of the principle & claiming the whole of the consequences, without any of the little feminine concessions and reserves—the thing will evidently not drop, but will go on till it succeeds, & I really do now think that we have a good chance of living to see something decisive really accomplished on that of all practical subjects the most important—to see that will be really looking down from Pisgah on the promised land—how little I thought we should ever see it.

The days seem always short to me as they pass. The time that seems long, the time that I am often impatient of the length of, is the time till spring9—the Edition: current; Page: [50] time till we have a home, till we are together in our life instead of this unsatisfactory this depressing coming and going, in which all disagreeables have so much more power than belongs to them, & the atmosphere of happiness has not time to penetrate & pervade in the way I know so well even by the most imperfect experience & which then it will always—

I am not sure that I perceive precisely what is the point on which you ask for a more distinct statement of my opinion.2 If it be this—whether the social arrangements by which the possessors of capital are able to appropriate to themselves the whole excess of the production above the outlay, are good arrangements & such as it is desirable should continue—I answer, no. But if the question be whether, those social arrangements remaining as they are, a capitalist is morally bound to give up to the workpeople whom he employs, all the profits of his capital, after deducting interest at the market rate, & the day-wages of his own labour (if any) my answer is, that I do not consider him to be under this obligation.

The economics of society may be grounded either on the principle of property or on that of community. The principle of property I understand to be, that what any individuals have earned by their own labour, and what the law permits them to be given to them by others, they are allowed to dispose of at pleasure, for their own use, & are not, as you seem to think, bound to hold it in trust for the public or for the poor. This is a great advance, both in justice & in utility, above the mere law of force, but far inferior to the law of community; & there is not & cannot be any reason against the immediate adoption of some form of this last, unless it be that mankind are not yet prepared for it.

But I do not therefore think it is the duty (though it may sometimes be praiseworthy) of conscientious persons who have earned or acquired property Edition: current; Page: [51] in the present imperfect social scheme, to distribute their surplus among the poor. To attempt to give all the reasons for this opinion would require a long ethical discussion: but to consider it only economically:—The rule of private property has at least the advantage, that it stimulates individuals to thrive by their own energies: under communism there would be a just division of exertion & of its fruits: but there is a tertium quid which would be worse than either—namely that those who had failed to exert themselves to thrive, should rely on having the difference made up to them, either in the form of gifts or of a tax, by those who have so thriven.

When you suggest the enforcement by law, if possible, on all capitalists, of this proposed abnegation of any profit beyond a moderate interest, you in fact propose to abolish the law of property “in its present form” (to repeat the words I used). I have no objection to that, but it has to be shewn if there is any halting place, short of communism. I am open to any lights on the subject; but the occasion was not suitable for entering into it before the Committee.3

Since receiving your note I have read Mr Kingsley’s article.2 I think it an effective piece of controversial writing; & as against the Edinburgh Professor3 whom he attacks, he has the best of the argument. I agree with him that if farmers cannot cultivate with a profit under free trade the fault is in their own ignorance & indolence or the greediness of their landlords—& also that if farmers cannot or will not do it, peasant proprietors Edition: current; Page: [52] or cooperative villages can. If I could really think that free trade would break up the present system of landlords farmers & labourers for hire, I should think the repeal of the corn laws4 a far greater & more beneficial event than I have hitherto believed it.

In the imaginary dialogue between Common Sense & a Protectionist,5 there are several propositions of political economy which I think erroneous, 1st, Corn laws make food dearer, but I do not agree in the proposition that they make it less plentiful. If, notwithstanding the higher price, the consumers are willing to buy the same quantity, the same quantity will be produced. 2nd, I do not admit that cheap food makes other things cheap, since it does not diminish the cost of producing or importing other things. 3rd. Neither do I think that the cheapening of food necessarily lowers wages. When it does so, it is only gradually, by giving a stimulus to population, unless there is already a surplus of unemployed labourers supported by charity. 4thly. When the fall of wages comes (if it does come) I agree with the writer, that wages do not fall in proportion to the fall in the price of food; for the reason he gives, viz. that wages are not wholly spent on food, but partly on things which have not fallen; & for example if half the labourer’s expenditure consists of food, & food falls ten per cent, the utmost fall of wages which would ensue would be five per cent. But the writer seems to forget that by the hypothesis, a fall of five per cent in wages would be sufficient to deprive the labourer of all advantage from the fall of ten per cent in food; so that his argument proves nothing for his purpose.

On a subject which has been so much & so well discussed as the free trade question one has no right to require new ideas. There is an original idea in the article, but I am afraid it is an erroneous one. The writer says, that animals give back to the soil (when there is no waste of manure) all the material which they take from it in nutriment, & he thinks this proves that however much population might increase production would increase in the same ratio. I apprehend it only proves that the power of production needs never be exhausted, but not that it admits of indefinite increase. To make out his point he must maintain that the soil will yield a double produce on the application of a double quantity of manure. So far from this, it is well known that manuring beyond a certain amount injures the crop.

The remainder of the political economy of the article I agreed with, to the best of my remembrance—but much of the incidental matter I totally dissent from. It is not Mr K’s socialism6 that stands in the way of our agreement; Edition: current; Page: [53] I am far more a Socialist than he is. It is the old, not the new part of his opinions which forms the gulph between us. This very article talks of “the righteous judgments of one who visits the sins of the fathers upon the children.” To such a degree does religion or what is so called, pervert morality. How can morality be anything but the chaos it now is, when the ideas of right & wrong, just & unjust, must be wrenched into accordance either with the notions of a tribe of barbarians in a corner of Syria three thousand years ago, or with what is called the order of Providence; in other words, the course of nature, of which so great a part is tyranny & iniquity—all the things which are punished as the most atrocious crimes when done by human creatures, being the daily doings of nature through the whole range of organic life.

Mr K’s notions must be little less vague about my political economy than about my socialism when he couples my name7 with that of a mere tyro like H. Martineau.8

To answer the questions2 you put to me, even in their principal bearings, would be to write an Essay—& my whole time would hardly suffice to give satisfactory answers to all the questions I am asked by correspondents previously unknown to me. I may say briefly, that if an employer of labour felt bound to divide his profits justly, that is, on some principle of equality among all persons concerned, it is by no means certain that he would in the present state of society & education do a benefit to the individuals equivalent to his sacrifice—& still less certain that he could not, in some other manner, make the same amount of sacrifices instrumental to some greater good. These conditions at least seem to be necessary to make such conduct obligatory. I do not give this as a complete but only as an obvious answer.

Edition: current; Page: [54]

With regard to the last point in your letter,3 I should be glad to see Leclaire’s system4 generally adopted, and should not object to it being made compulsory by law if I thought such a law could be executed: but the execution of it would require that the state should fix, not only the interest of capital (which it might do), but the wages of the labourers, the salary for superintendence, & the remuneration for risk of capital: & as these are variable elements, they could not be determined by law, but only by some officer pro hac vice. If the state is to exercise this power, it would be better in many respects, & probably not worse in any, that the state should take all the capital of the country, paying interest for it, & become itself the sole employer of labour, which would be communism.

I am Sir Yours truly

J. S. Mill

Edition: current; Page: [55]

1851

I ought to have written to you yesterday morning to prevent your coming round in the evening—I intended, but I am ashamed to say I forgot—I have read the Water Report2 & a great deal of the Appx. It is all very interesting but on the main question you had said all it contains, & more too—

I shall not give the Assn a long answer.3 If they want me as an authority against the nonsense of the Economist4 &c. they will get what they want—

If you are inclined for an article on the Emanicipation of Women,2 a Edition: current; Page: [56] propos of the Convention3 in Massachusetts which I mentioned to you the last time I saw you, I have one nearly ready, which can be finished & sent to you within a week, which, I suppose, is in time for your April number.

I am sorry that there is not likely to be room for the article2 in the next number of the Westr. If not, I will take care to send it in time for the July number.

I shall regret much if the review passes out of your hands3 into those of anyone who would have no object but to endeavour to make it profitable. It is the only organ through which really advanced opinions can get access to the public & it is very honourable to you that you have kept that organ in life & at work for ten years past and have made it so good a thing, under difficult circumstances, as you have. It has improved too in its late numbers.

After your former note, & as I did not hear from you for some days, subsequently I concluded that the article could not be printed in this number of the Edition: current; Page: [57] review.2 It is therefore not in a state to be got ready by Friday. It must therefore wait till July. I hope you will not be put to any inconvenience for want of it.

I shall very much regret if the review should pass out of your control. I am very glad that the arrangement you speak of is not final.3

I shall be happy to see you at the India House tomorrow at one—but if the weather & the state of your health, which I regret to hear is unsatisfactory should again interfere with your intention, any other day except Saturday or Sunday will suit me equally well—

I beg that you will make my respectful acknowledgments to the Council of the Tenant League2 for the great honour they have done me by their proposal, communicated through you & Mr Duffy & by the very flattering terms of their Resolution. If it were in my power to go into parliament at present I should be highly gratified by being returned for a purpose so congenial to my principles & convictions3 as the reform of the pernicious system of landed tenure which more than any other cause keeps the great body of the agricultural population of Ireland always on the verge of starvation. You are aware however that I hold an office under the E[ast] I[ndia] C[ompany] which of necessity occupies a large portion of my time: & I have reason to believe that the C[ourt] of D[irectors] would consider a seat in parliament as incompatible with it. Whatever therefore I might have done under other circumstances, I am compelled to decline the offered honour—& I feel it right to do so at once, rather than (as you suggest) to leave the question in any degree open, since I could not in fairness allow any trouble to be taken for a purpose which would merely give greater publicity to the honour intended me, while I could not hold out the prospect of its leading to any practical result.

Edition: current; Page: [59]

With regard to the wish entertained by the Council to reprint in a separate form such passages of my Pol. Ec. as they may think likely to be useful to their cause, any such proposal can only be made to my publisher Mr Parker to whom I have parted with the property of the present edition. Should he give his consent I shall most willingly give mine; but the application could not with any propriety be made to him by myself. In any future edition of the book there will doubtless, as you observe, be much to alter & improve in the parts relating to Ireland, but it would not be fair to Mr Parker that I should publish these improvements before the present edition is exhausted.

Lord J. Russell has been justly punished for his truckling to the Times, the parsons and the bigots.2 He has disgusted all real liberals without satisfying Edition: current; Page: [60] or pleasing any one else. He has left to such men as Sir J. Graham3 and Lord Aberdeen4 the whole credit of standing up for religious liberty and for justice to Ireland, and he is now a minister by sufferance, until it suits any one of the factions of the H. of C. to turn him out: continually beaten and unable to count on a single vote except those of the office holders and their family connexions.

Thanks for the congratulations & good wishes in your letter,2 which I found waiting for me on returning from the country.3 No one ever was more to be congratulated than I am. As to your questions—I shall take a fortnight at Easter, when we shall be married in Dorsetshire4 where Mrs Taylor & her family are staying—We intend to live a little way out of London if we find a house that suits us—the particular place therefore is as yet quite uncertain.

About the money matters you mention—Crompton5 certainly ought to give a power of attorney for your dividends if he cannot be in town to receive them. Those for last July I remitted because he told me he should not be in town then, or for some time after. He appears never to have been in town since. When he receives them he will of course repay me & that will be soon enough—

In future please to send all your letters direct to Kensington6 except when intended for me only—

I thank you for your congratulations & good wishes. I am indeed very much to be congratulated. I have just returned from Dorsetshire where we shall be married about the end of this month,2 but I do not think we shall make any tour before autumn.

About your own affairs I cannot judge of the furniture question. You must decide. I suppose you will not sell it if you can either let your apartment furnished or find a boarder. I wonder you do not persuade my mother3 to live with you—She likes housekeeping, & to keep house for you seems to me the most sensible & suitable thing she could do. With her income4 in Germany she would be almost rich & I am convinced the climate would exactly suit her—you know cold never disagrees with her but damp warm weather does.

About all the other circumstances & people mentioned in your letter you will no doubt hear from them at K[ensington] & in future send all yr letters direct to K except when you write specially to me.

The new number of the Westr is a woful specimen of the new editorship2—the general character of the writing is verbose emptiness—feebleness of stile, & total absence of thought or of any decided opinion on any subject. In the midst of the vapid want of meaning, only two things stand out prominently: one of these is a very vulgar attack3 on H. Martineau’s book for Edition: current; Page: [62] irreligion—the other, in the small print at the end, is a denunciation of the author of “Social Statics”4 for “pushing his conclusions too far” on the “rights of women and children” “from not perceiving with sufficient clearness that no one can have a valid claim to a right without the capacity for performing its correlative duty”—the article I proposed to you on the rights of women5 narrowly missed being bound up with this despicable trash! It is hard to see a review that so many have worked in for advanced opinions, thus sunk in the mud—to see it converted into an organ against its former opinions.

Is it not possible that Mr. Lombe,6 being so zealous & liberal, would as soon spend the money he now gives for single articles in being proprietor of the review? If a paid manager were provided for the business department, perhaps the literary editorship, without the pecuniary responsibility, would not be more than you might be willing to retain, for the sake of preserving an organ of really free opinions? I feel so strongly on the subject that if you would not like to make the suggestion yourself, I should have no objection to write to Mr Lombe proposing it, & offering to give you & him all the help that my other occupations admit of. Do tell me what you think of the whole matter.

Having received your two notes only this morning, I must take a day for consideration before I can make any answer to your proposal.2 I earnestly hope the review may be kept out of the hands of merely pecuniary speculators & of the present editor3 and may remain what it has always been till now, an organ for the most advanced opinions.

I am afraid, all that I could engage to do towards carrying on the Westr would be to write for it often, & to give the best of my judgment on the choice of subjects & articles. If I were to undertake the editorship, though without the mere business department, so much time & exertion would be required, that I could not write anything else of importance,—& I think I can now do more for my opinions by writing books than by the best I could hope to make of the review. While I should be glad to second any plan for preserving the review, I cannot be the pivot on which the plan turns. If I thought that £500 expended on the review would have the effect you seem to think it would—if it would enable the Westr to take the place of the Edinburgh—I would gladly help to raise it—but I do not think there is any probability of much. . . .2

I hope I may be pardoned for addressing to you in this form rather than through the newspapers, a remonstrance against the gross insult to every woman in the country, which has found its way into the Govt bill now passing through the H. of C. for regulating the sale of arsenic.2 The clause, which did not form part of the bill as it came from the hands of its framers, but was added in the H. of L. at the suggestion of some unknown person, is that which forbids arsenic to be sold in less quantity than ten pounds to any person “other than a male person of full age”—all women, from the highest to the lowest, being declared unfit to have poison in their possession, lest Edition: current; Page: [64] they shall commit murder. It is impossible to believe that so monstrous a proposition could have obtained the assent of Govt except through inadvertence—& an individual, though personally unknown to you, may hope to be excused if at the hazard of being thought intrusive, he takes such means as are in his power of soliciting from you that attention to the subject which he is persuaded cannot yet have been given to it.

If the bill passes with this clause, it is a retrograde step in legislation, a return to the ideas and practices of barbarous ages. One of the characteristics of the improved spirit of the present time is the growing tendency to the elevation of women—towards their relief from disabilities, their increased estimation, the assignment to them of a higher position, both social & domestic. But this clause is a blind step in the reverse direction. It singles out women for the purpose of degrading them. It establishes a special restriction, a peculiar disqualification against them alone. It assumes that women are more addicted than men to committing murder! Does the criminal calendar, or the proceedings of the police courts, shew a preponderance of women among the most atrocious criminals? Everybody knows that the direct contrary is the truth, & that men outnumber women in the records of crime, in the ratio of four to one. On what supposition are men to be trusted with poisons & women not, unless that of their peculiar wickedness? While the spirit of the age & the tendency of all improvement is to make women the equals of men, this bill puts on them the stamp of the most degrading inferiority, precisely where the common voice of mankind proclaims them superior—in moral goodness.

If all the restrictions imposed by this bill were common to men & women, it would be giving up pro tanto the peculiar, & one of the most valuable characteristics of English freedom; it would be treating all mankind, except the government & its agents, as children; but it would be giving an equal measure of justice to all, & would be no insult or disparagement peculiarly to any. The legislature will not declare that Englishmen cannot be trusted with poisons, but it is not ashamed to assert that Englishwomen cannot. A law which if common to both would be merely a specimen of timidity & over caution, is when limited to women, a legislative declaration that Englishwomen are poisoners—Englishwomen as a class—as distinguished from Englishmen. And for what reason, or under what incitement is this insult passed upon them? Because among the last dozen murders there were two or three cases, which attracted some public attention, of poisoning by women. Is it the part of a legislature to shape its laws to the accidental peculiarities of the latest crime reported in the newspapers? If the last two or three murderers had been men with red hair, as well might Parliament have rushed to pass an Act restricting all red haired men from buying or possessing deadly weapons.

Edition: current; Page: [65]

The silence of all who from their position could have made their voice heard, will I hope be my excuse for addressing to you, even at so late a period, this appeal.

You have, I doubt not, chosen the best of the offers made to you for the review2—but it is a great burthen on you to spend the whole summer in labouring for it only to give it up to Chapman3 six months hence. How is it that since you have decided to let Chapman have the review, he does not take it at once? Is it necessary that you should carry it on as a mere locum tenens for him? For my own part I am not sure nor do I think it likely, that I should be disposed to work for Chapman & though I am anxious to do all I can to help you in your difficulty about the numbers to be brought out by you I shall grudge both your time & trouble & my own for a mere interim arrangement.

If you go on with your present plan,4 I will endeavour to write something besides the article on the women’s subject. A review of the session would perhaps be as suitable as anything else I could do.5

At whatever cost, I am very glad that you have taken the review out Edition: current; Page: [66] of such entirely unsuitable hands.2 As for this man’s threat3 of associating his name with those of his betters by publishing all that you have written or said to him about contributors and others, it appears to be one of the manoeuvres of the day, by which obscure literary people thrust themselves into some sort of notice. A man who fights with such weapons cannot be treated with. You are quite right to leave him to do his worst.

What are your prospects as to articles? Shall you have Roebuck’s4 for this number? I will do all I can to help you until you are able to make some permanent arrangement. I will send you the article I have in hand as soon as I can5—after which, though very busy at present, I will set about writing something else, probably on taxation.6 If you think of any subject you should like better, pray suggest it.

The printer has only this morning sent the proof. I should wish to keep it as long as you can conveniently let me. It is necessary on such a subject to be as far as possible invulnerable. I have not quite fixed on a heading. The best I have thought of is “Enfranchisement of Women.” The one you propose with the word “sex” in it would never do. That word is enough to vulgarize a whole review. It is almost as bad as “female.”

A young friend2 of mine is writing an article on a new Life of Gregory Nazianzus3 intending to offer it to you for this number: would the subject suit you? It is on the tapis just now.

Edition: current; Page: [67]

Perhaps Burton’s Political and Social Economy,4 or Spencer’s Social Statics,5 might furnish me with matter for a few pages.6 I have not read either book and should like to see them—but if you have not them already, it is not worth while to get them for a mere possibility. I have not been able to get them from any Library.

I shall be happy to give an opinion, to the best of my judgment, on any matter upon which you may wish to consult me respecting the Westminster Review,2 in which I have always taken & still take much interest—but it must be by correspondence. I am much engaged at present, & living out of town, & in any case I could answer, much more satisfactorily to myself, a written, than a verbal communication.

I have read the Prospectus2 on which you ask my opinion, & I now put down some of the remarks which occur to me on the subject. The Prospectus Edition: current; Page: [68] is addressed to “the friends of philosophic Reform”; I think this a bad phrase. “Philosophic Reformers” is a worn-out & gone by expression; it had a meaning twenty years ago.3 “Philosophic reform” does not, to my mind, carry any meaning at all—unless to signify a reform in philosophy.

The Prospectus says, that the Review is to be distinctly characterised by “certain definite but broad principles”: but instead of laying down any such principles it contains little else than details of the measures which the review will advocate on the principal political questions just now discussed in the newspapers. The only sentence which seems intended for a declaration of principles is that forming the third paragraph—& this, so far from “distinctly characterising” any set of opinions or course of conduct, contains nothing to distinguish the review from any liberal or semi liberal newspaper or periodical, or from anybody who says he is for reform but not for revolution. The doctrine stated, such as it is, I do not agree in. Instead of thinking that “strength & durability are the result only of a slow & peaceful development,” I think that changes effected rapidly & by force are often the only ones which in given circumstances would be permanent: & by the statement that “reforms to be salutary must be graduated to the average moral & intellectual growth of society” I presume is meant (though I am by no means sure about the meaning if any) that the measures of a government ought never to be in advance of the average intellect & virtue of the people—according to which doctrine there would neither have been the Reformation, the Commonwealth, nor the Revolution of 1688, & the stupidity & habitual indifference of the mass of mankind would bear down by its dead weight all the efforts of the more intelligent & active minded few.

The Prospectus says “the review will not neglect that important range of subjects which are related to Politics as an inner concentric circle, & which have been included under the term Sociology.” I understand by Sociology not a particular class of subjects included within Politics, but a vast field including it—the whole field of enquiry & speculation respecting human society & its arrangements, of which the forms of government, & the principles of the conduct of governments are but a part. And it seems to me impossible that even the politics of the day can be discussed on principle, or with a view to anything but the exigencies of the moment, unless by setting out from definite opinions respecting social questions more fundamental than what is commonly called politics. I cannot, therefore, understand how a review making the professions which the Prospectus does, can treat such questions as a particular “range of subjects” which will merely not be neglected, & on which “diverse theories” will be considered with a Edition: current; Page: [69] view chiefly to ascertain “how far our efforts after a more perfect social state must be restrained” by certain conditions mentioned. I confess it seems to me, the only worthy object of a Review of Progress is to consider how far & in what manner such objects may be promoted, & how the obstacles, whether arising from the cause mentioned or from any other, may most effectually be overcome.

In conclusion, I think it right to say that if your wish to consult me respecting the Westminster Review arises from any belief that I am likely to be a contributor to it, I can hold out no prospect that the expectation will be realized. My willingness to contribute even occasionally to the Westr under any new management4 would entirely depend on the opinion I form of it after seeing it in operation.

I am surprised to see by the revise of my article2 that you have made two verbal alterations. I gave you the article on an understood consideration, the only one on which I ever write, that no alterations should be made by anyone but myself, & from this condition I cannot depart. I have returned the corrected revise to the printer. I should be obliged by your letting me have (if possible before the review is out) twenty-five separate copies, at my expense. I wish for no title page, but in place of it a page with only the words “Reprinted from the Westminster Review for July 1851.” I should like to see a proof of the reprint.

I send the short article3 I mentioned to you. The subject may make an agreeable variety.

From what I have read of the writings of the Christian Socialists, & from the communications which I have had with some of them,2 I have found their principles & mine to be too radically opposed for any verbal explanation or discussion between us to be of advantage. I think quite as unfavourably of the present constitution of society as they do—probably much more so; & I look forward to alterations extending to many more, & more important points than the relation between masters & workmen: I should not expect much practical benefit from a modification of that single relation, without changes fully as great in existing opinions & institutions on religious moral & domestic subjects, all of which the Christian Socialists desire to preserve,—or without accepting & acting upon principles of political & social economy which they reject. So far as they promote experiments on the association of workpeople,3 & so far as they cultivate, in any workpeople under their influence the dispositions & habits which tend to make association practicable & beneficial, I approve their intention & applaud their efforts: but even where my objects are the same with theirs, my premises are mostly so different, that my path & theirs must lie separate, & I must beg you to excuse me from joining in your proposed conferences with them

The article on Gregory2 must wait if necessary, till the October number,—but I should like it to be in that number as it is written by a young man of promise, who it is desirable should be encouraged to write. If not used at present you will perhaps send it back, as it was written hastily in the expectation of being wanted for the July number, & if time were taken for its revision it could probably be improved.

Edition: current; Page: [71]

Chapman wrote asking to see me on the subject of the Westr. I answered that I would willingly give my opinion but only in writing.3 He afterwards sent me the Prospectus & I wrote to him my opinion of it.4

If Newman’s book5 is worth reviewing, it will be best I think, to take it by itself. Spencer or Burton6 I thought of only as a pis aller. If the book has been sent to you I should be glad to see it & I can then decide whether to write about it or not.

I have to apologize for the delay in answering your note of April 23. I was out of town when it arrived. When I returned it was hastily looked at & thrown aside with other papers, & though I read & was much interested by the pamphlet which accompanied it, I had forgotten until the note accidentally turned up the other day, that you had ever written asking my opinion of the plan: especially as you were already aware from our conversation when you were in London, that I thought very favourably of it. This favourable opinion has been confirmed by reading the pamphlet.2 The machinery of the scheme seems unobjectionable—the success of the Land Societies in England demonstrates its feasibility: & it is open to none of the objections which old prejudice urges against any more summary mode of creating a body of small landholders owning the land they cultivate.

I fully understood that the Prospectus you sent me was not finally determined on.2 As you asked for my opinion, I gave it freely—& I can have no objection, if desired, to tell you with the same freedom what I think of any future one3—but to give positive suggestions, only belongs to those whose organ the work is to be. Those only can prepare the programme who are to conduct the review—since they best know what they intend, & what they have the power to accomplish.

The reason you give for what you very truly call the air of conservatism in the Prospectus, is intelligible; but does not seem to me to render advisable the use of expressions giving the idea that the Westr no longer wishes to be considered as professing extreme opinions. The review was founded by people who held what were then thought extreme opinions,4 & it is only needed as an organ of opinions as much in advance of the present state of the public mind as those were in advance of its then state. Anything less is but child’s play after the events of the last three years in Europe & besides, every intermediate position is fully occupied by other periodicals.

I cannot think of any subject of an article for your October number more suitable than Newman’s book2—so I will write on that—& you may depend on having the article, but I cannot yet judge what will be its length.

Edition: current; Page: [73]

The paper on Gregory Nazianzus3 shall be sent in two or three days. I enclose the extract from the Times.4

I have long ceased to be surprised at any want of good sense or good manners in what proceeds from you—you appear to be too thoughtless or too ignorant to be capable of either—but such want of good feeling, together with such arrogant assumption, as are shown in your letters to my wife & to Haji I was not prepared for.2 The best construction that can be put upon them is that you really do not know what insolence and presumption are: Edition: current; Page: [74] or you would not write such letters & seem to expect to be as well liked as before by those to whom & of whom they are written. You were “surprised,” truly, at our marriage & do not “know enough of the circumstances to be able to form an opinion on the subject.” Who asks you to form an opinion? An opinion on what? Do men usually when they marry consult the opinion of a brother twenty years younger than themselves? or at my age of any brother or person at all? But though you form no “opinion” you presume to catechize Haji respecting his mother, & call her to account before your tribunal for the conformity between her conduct & her principles—being at the same time, as you say yourself, totally ignorant what her principles are. On the part of any one who avowedly does not know what her principles are, the surmise that she may have acted contrary to them is a gratuitous impertinence. To every one who knows her it would be unnecessary to say that she has, in this as in all things, acted according to her principles. What imaginary principles are they which should prevent people who have known each other the greater part of their lives, during which her & Mr. Taylor’s house has been more a home to me than any other, and who agree perfectly in all their opinions, from marrying?

You profess to have taken great offence because you knew of our intended marriage “only at second hand.” People generally hear of marriages at “second hand”, I believe. If you mean that I did not write to you on the subject, I do not know any reason you had to expect that I should. I informed your mother & sisters who I knew would inform you—& I did not tell them of it on account of any right they had to be informed, for my relations with any of them have been always of too cool & distant a kind to give them the slightest right or reason to expect anything more than ordinary civility from me—& when I did tell them I did not receive ordinary civility in return. In the dissertation on my character with which you favour Haji, you shew yourself quite aware that it has never been my habit to talk to them about my concerns—& assuredly the feelings you have shown to me in the last two or three years have not been so friendly as to give me any cause for making you an exception. As for the “mystery” which on my father’s authority you Edition: current; Page: [75] charge me with, if we are to bandy my father’s sayings I could cite plenty of them about all his family except the younger ones, compared with which this is very innocent. It could be said at all but as a half joke—& every one has a right to be mysterious if they like. But I have not been mysterious, for I had never anything to be mysterious about. I have not been in the habit of talking unasked about my friends, or indeed about any other subject.3

I am for the first time downhearted about French affairs.2 The party in possession of power is evidently determined to go to all lengths, and I fear both events are favourable to them. If they succeed in provoking an emeute, they will put it down and then execute all their designs at once; if there is no emeute, they will go from one step to another till they have effected all they want.

If you could conveniently send a proof of the article on Newman3 addressed to me Poste Restante at Brussels so as to arrive there on the 15th or 16th I would return it to you the next day, which I suppose would not be so late as to cause inconvenience. I congratulate you on being so near to the termination of your labours.4

Having been out of town when your note dated the 10th was sent to the India House, I have only just received it. Mr. Place,2 whom I have not seen Edition: current; Page: [77] for very many years, knows nothing whatever of me or of my literary engagements. I have never had any intention of writing on Comte’s book,3 nor do I think that a translation or an abridgement of it is likely to be either useful or successful.

I am quite unable to point out any one whom I think in any degree competent to write an article on Asiatic life, of the comprehensive kind which you appear to desire. Writers capable of treating any large subject in a large & free manner, along with precision & definiteness of meaning, seem to be rarer than ever in this country. The vast subject you indicate is one of the many on which nothing has yet been written, nor do I believe there is any person in this country competent to attempt it.

You cannot expect me to like an article2 of which the conclusions are so opposite to mine; & as I do not think that they admit of being supported by good arguments, this implies that I think yours fallacious. The strong points seem to me some of your replies to other people’s arguments, but your own appear to me no better than those you reply to. To mention minor matters—there are two mistakes in the Greek which it would be well to correct. Pyrrho (the sceptic) is printed Pyrrhus (king of Epirus), & Academus, a man’s name, is printed instead of the Academy or the Academics. It is impossible Edition: current; Page: [78] to say The Academus. (A propos the Greek in the article on Gregory3 is very incorrectly printed).

If I should criticize on a matter of taste, I should say that your article loses altogether in appearance of strength by the capitals and italics. Italics are bad enough but Capitals make anything look weak.

The article on Newman4 is spoilt by printer’s punctuation & typographical errors.

I wonder that you as the representative of the old sterling Westminster Review opinions, should have allowed to be printed in it vulgar misrepresentation of Bentham, its founder;5 vilifying a man who has done more for the world than any man of modern times, by talking about “the Gospel according to Jeremy Bentham” as synonymous with the most grovelling selfishness. (There is no selfishness in Bentham’s doctrines). I think you should have struck out both that expression and also the “godless Benthamism” because intended for abuse.

It is a pity that a man of Mr. Lombe’s public spirit has not made a better use of £500 than giving it for a translation of Comte6—whose book can be read in French by anybody likely to read it at all, or who could derive any benefit from the only good part of it, the scientific, for his opinions on social matters are very bad. H. Martineau besides cannot translate the mathematics which is the principal thing in the book.

The article in the Globe7 is evidently by Newman. He is in a furious rage, & means to be as offensive as he knows how to be, but he is such a poor creature, so terrified at anything like really free opinions & so in awe of the gone-by phrases about them, that he thinks the severest thing he can say of the writer of the article is to charge him, in those gone-by phrases, with the very opinions which the article itself professes.

I like the altered Prospectus2 better than the first; but I should have greatly preferred a simple & plain expression of the plan & principles intended to be followed. The Prospectus still seems to me to rely on sound rather than on sense; the only distinct statement of opinion being on the mere newspaper topics of the day. Some expressions seem to me more than questionable: for instance “free trade in every department of commerce”—this must mean “free trade in every department of trade.”

The first number3 will shew what meaning the writers attach to the word Progress, & how far the review will be an organ of it.

I am Sir yr obt Sert

J. S. Mill

Edition: current; Page: [80]

1852

Want of time has prevented me from returning an earlier answer to your letter of 31st December. The question you ask me is one of the most difficult which any one can put either to others or to himself, namely, how to teach social science to the uneducated, when those who are called the educated have not learnt it; and nearly all the teaching given from authority is opposed to genuine morality.

What the poor as well as the rich require is not to be indoctrinated, is not to be taught other people’s opinions, but to be induced and enabled to think for themselves. It is not physical science that will do this, even if they could learn it much more thoroughly than they are able to do. After reading, writing, and arithmetic (the last a most important discipline in habits of accuracy and precision, in which they are extremely deficient), the desirable thing for them seems to be the most miscellaneous information, and the most varied exercise of their faculties. They cannot read too much. Quantity is of more importance than quality, especially all reading which relates to human life and the ways of mankind; geography, voyages and travels, manners and customs, and romances, which must tend to awaken their imagination and give them some of the meaning of self-devotion and heroism, in short, to unbrutalise them. By such reading they would become, to a certain extent, cultivated beings, which they would not become by following out, even to the greatest length, physical science. As for education in the best sense of the term, I fear they have a long time to wait for it. The higher and middle classes cannot educate the working classes unless they are first educated themselves. The miserable pretence of education, which those classes now receive, does not form minds fit to undertake the guidance of other minds, or to exercise a beneficient influence over them by personal contact. Still, any person who sincerely desires whatever is for the good of all, however it may affect himself or his own class, and who regards the great social questions as matters of reason and discussion and not as settled long ago, may, I believe, do a certain Edition: current; Page: [81] amount of good by merely saying to the working classes whatever he sincerely thinks on the subjects on which they are interested. Free discussion with them as equals, in speech and in writing, seems the best instruction that can be given them, specially on social subjects.

With regard to the social questions now before the public, and in which, as I gather from your letter, the working classes of your town have begun to take an interest, it seems to me chiefly important to impress on them—first, that they are quite right in aiming at a more equal distribution of wealth and social advantages; secondly, that this more equal distribution can only be permanently affected (for merely taking from Peter to give to Paul would leave things worse than even at present) by means of their own public spirit and self-devotion as regards others, and prudence and self-restraint in relation to themselves. At present their idea of social reform appears to be simply higher wages, and less work, for the sake of more sensual indulgence. To be independent of master manufacturers, to work for themselves and divide the whole produce of their labour is a worthy object of ambition, but it is only fit for, and can only succeed with people who can labour for the community of which they are a part with the same energy and zeal as if labouring for their own private and separate interest (the opposite is now the case), and who, instead of expecting immediately more pay and less work, are willing to submit to any privation until they have effected their emancipation. The French working men and women contended for a principle, for an idea of justice, and they lived on bread and water till they gained their purpose. It was not more and costlier eating and drinking that was their object, as it seems to be the sole object of most of the well-paid English artisans.

If in applying to me you hoped that I might be able to offer you any suggestions of more specific character, I hope you will attribute my not doing so to the difficulty of the subject and not to any want of will on my part.

Dies Solis and Die Solis have totally different meanings, being different cases. Dies Solis is the nominative case & signifies “the day of the Sun” Edition: current; Page: [82] or Sunday. Die Solis is the ablative case, & means “on” Sunday, as parliamentary papers are headed Die Lunae, Sabbati &c. to signify on that particular day: but Dies is what I suppose will suit your purpose.4

I am not aware of anything among the Greeks corresponding to the Nundinae,5 nor of any Greek holidays except the very numerous festivals.

I hope you are enjoying the free disposal of your time, released from the cares & burthens of a review.6

You are certainly mistaken if you suppose that I said you had been uncivil to my wife. I said you had been wanting in all good feeling and even common civility to us. My wife and I are one.

You flatter yourself very undeservedly if you think that either my wife, or I for her, seek your acquaintance. You had an opportunity of seeking hers if you chose and you shewed in every negative way in which it is possible to shew a thing that you did not choose. My wife is accustomed not to seek but to be sought, neither she nor I desire the acquaintance of anybody who does not wish for ours.

I received yesterday two most silly notes from Clara & Harriet filled with vague accusations. They say that when you called at the I.H. on Monday, I “complained to you of their incivility to my wife” [& . . . no such things]2 Another charge is that I repeated idle gossip in a note to you last summer—this is untrue. George Fletcher3 called at the I.H. a day or two before I wrote that note to you & asked after my wife saying he was very sorry to hear she was not well. I asked where he heard that; he said he was told so at Kensington, & this I mentioned in my note to you: no one else had anything to do with it. This was not “gossip.”

I think that for a book so decidedly successful as the Pol. Ec. I may reasonably hope for more than £300 for the next edition,2 considering that I have Edition: current; Page: [84] made great additions & improvements in it. I do not think my share of the profit of the last edition was nearly what I should have obtained had I published it on my own account. Will you turn the matter over in your mind & tell me what you think of it.

M. Guillaumin3 the bookseller of Paris intends to publish a translation of the book,4 and I have promised that the sheets shall be sent to him as they come from the press. I have also promised them to Dr. Soetbeer of Hamburg,5 who has already published the first volume of a German translation.

I wish to have a copy sent to Professor Ferrari [sic] of Turin6 who has translated the book into Italian, & I should be glad to have three copies for myself.

The pressure of my occupations has left me no leisure until now to answer your letter & to thank you for the volume of your translation of Edition: current; Page: [85] my Pol. Ec. which you were so good as to send me. As far as I have had time to examine it the translation seems extremely well executed: the sense appears to be very faithfully & clearly rendered. I only regret that your time & pains were not bestowed on the edition which is now about to go to press & which I have not only revised throughout but have entirely recast several important chapters; in particular the two most important, those on Property & on the Futurity of the Labouring Classes.2 The progress of discussion & of European events has entirely altered the aspect of the questions treated in those chapters; the present time admits of a much more free & full enunciation of my opinions on those subjects than would have had any chance of an impartial hearing when the book was first written; & some change has also taken place in the opinions themselves. I observe that in your preface you recommend the book to your readers as a refutation of Socialism: I certainly was far from intending that the statement it contained of the objections to the best known Socialist schemes should be understood as a condemnation of Socialism regarded as an ultimate result of human improvement, & further consideration has led me to attach much less weight than I then did even to those objections, with one single exception—the unprepared state of the labouring classes & their extreme moral unfitness at present for the rights which Socialism would confer & the duties it would impose. This is the only objection to which you will find any great importance attached in the new edition; & I am sorry that your translation should place before German readers as a current statement of my opinions what has ceased to be so. You propose to give in the 2d vol. an account of the alterations in the new edition: as far as concerns the points which I have mentioned nothing less than a retranslation of the two chapters as they now stand, would enable your work to represent my opinions correctly. I shall be happy to send the sheets of the new edition in the manner pointed out by you, & the first parcel shall be made up as soon as I am able to include in it the chapter which contains the discussion of Socialism.

My occupations have prevented me until now from acknowledging the letter with which you favoured me as long ago as the 6th of February. It is not wonderful that staying but a short time in London2 & occupied as you were during that stay you had not time for the somewhat idle and generally very useless task of paying visits.

Though my references3 to your systematic work4 were confined to the Brussels translation,5 I am glad to say that I am able to read it in the original. Your writings6 indeed are the part with which I am best acquainted, of the German writers on pol. economy, in which as you justly surmise, I am not by any means well read. What you say of McCulloch7 does not surprise me. He is both prejudiced & inaccurate. I never place any confidence in the first edition of any of his books: but as the plan of most of them is good, people generally supply him with information which enables him to improve them very much in the second. His “Literature of Pol. Ec.”8 has however I shd think, but a small chance of making a second edition. Your plan of separating the scientific inquiry into the production & distribution of wealth, as a branch of social science, from the consideration of the economic policy of governments, appears to me both logically & didactically the best, & I have made the same separation in my own treatise. Of this I am just about to print a new edition in which among various other improvements I have entirely rewritten the chapter which contains the discussion of Socialism, & the Edition: current; Page: [87] greater part of that on the futurity of the labouring classes.9 I regret that the German translation of which one volume was lately published at Hamburg,10 was made from the previous edit., as it gives in many respects an erroneous idea of my opinions on Socialism. Even in the former editions though I stated a number of objections to the best known Socialist theories, I never represented those objections as final & conclusive & I think them of very little weight so far as regards the ultimate prospects of humanity. It is true that the low moral state of mankind generally and of the labouring classes in particular, renders them at present unfit for any order of things which would presuppose as its necessary condition a certain measure of conscience & of intellect. But it appears to me that the great end of social improvement should be to fit them by cultivation for a state of society combining the greatest personal freedom with that just distribution of the fruits of labour which the present laws of property do not even profess to aim at. To explain what I mean by a just distribution & to what extent I think it could be approximated to a practice would require more space than that of a letter. I confess that I regard the purely abstract investigations of pol. economy (beyond those elementary ones which are necessary for the correction of mischievous prejudices) as of very minor importance compared with the great practical questions which the progress of democracy & the spread of Socialist opinions are pressing on, & for which both the governing and the governed classes are very far from being in a fit state of mental preparation. It is to be decided whether Europe shall enter peacefully & prosperously into a better order of things or whether the new ideas will be inaugurated by a century of war & violence like that which followed the Reformation of Luther: and this alternative probably depends on the moral & intellectual movement of the next ten or twenty years. There is therefore abundance of occupation for moral & political teachers such as we aspire to be.

I have delayed too long to acknowledge your two letters & the remittance of £120. Wishing to do the best I could for forwarding your objects in connexion with the Poona Useful Knowledge Society but knowing Edition: current; Page: [88] little about tools or the best mode of procuring them I put your letters into the hands of Mr Cowper,2 Professor of Manufacturing Art at King’s College, London, who was the most likely person I could think of to be able & willing to do what you wished to be done. Mr Cowper undertook to make the necessary enquiries & gave hopes that he would procure the articles themselves & in the expectation of hearing from him I continually put off writing to you. When at last I wrote to remind him I received an answer which I inclose3 & in which you will find the reasons he gives why more has not yet been done. I have not received the further letter which he promises but I do not like to keep you any longer without a reply. You do not I suppose wish to view some of the things until all are ready & if you have any instructions to give about the mode of sending they may very likely arrive in time to be of use.

I am much interested by what I know both from yourself & otherwise of your exertions to instruct & improve the natives. Everything shews them to be eminently improvable & your Society at Poona seems to be a striking example of the spirit which is abroad among a portion of them, & of the great effect which may be produced even in a short time, by well directed efforts for their improvement. I am glad that you have found my writings useful to your pupils. I have to thank you for the Bombay papers containing your series of articles on Newman’s Pol Ec. lectures.4 It is but a poor book as you appear to think though you treat him very civilly. I agree in most of your remarks as well as in your just appreciation of the great teachers of political economy, particularly Ricardo.5 Of what you say about my own book I should be happy to think that it is not too complimentary. The edition which I have just begun to print will be, I hope, a great improvement on the first & second, the chapters on Socialism & on the Future of the Labouring Classes having been so much altered as to be almost entirely new.6 In your review of Newman the remarks on population are the only part which I must express dissent from, for though you agree in the main with Malthus you appear to think that no one ought to be blamed for having an inordinately large family if he produces, & brings them up to produce, enough for their support: now this with me is only a part & even a small part of the question: a much more important consideration still, is the perpetuation of the previous degradation & slavery of women, no alteration in which can be hoped for while their whole lives are devoted to the function of producing & rearing children. That degradation & slavery is in itself so enormous an evil, & contributes Edition: current; Page: [89] so much to the perpetuation of all other evils by keeping down the moral & intellectual condition of both men & women that the limitation of the number of children would be in my opinion absolutely necessary to place human life on its proper footing, even if there were subsistence for any number that could be produced. I think if you had been alive to this aspect of the question you would not have used such expressions as “your wife has made you a happy father rather more frequently than you are pleased to remember.” Such phrases are an attempt to laugh off the fact that the wife is in every sense the victim of the man’s animal instinct & not the less so because she is brought up to think that she has no right of refusal or even of complaint.

In reply to your note dated the 14th I beg to say that I am unwilling to be examined before a Committee on the case of the ballast heavers,2 because I have not studied it, and have not formed any opinion on it. As far as I am able to judge, I should think that a registry office or general house of call for ballast heavers would be useful, by taking them out of the hands of the public house keepers, but I should not be disposed to make it compulsory on employers to apply in the first instance to the registry office. The best conducted workmen would be to be heard of there, & I would trust to that inducement. I say this however without knowing anything of the Coalwhippers Act3 or its effects. I am

Owing to the absence of the late Editor of the Westminster Review from England, your letter of March 22. only reached me by post yesterday. I lose no time in writing to say that I am not Editor of the Westminster Review and have no connection whatever with it. I saw for the first time two days ago the present proprietor, Mr. John Chapman, bookseller and publisher 142 Strand, who bought the review last year, and who has the entire control of it. The mode in which I thought I could best promote your wishes was by sending your letter to Mr. Chapman, which I have accordingly done. The article2 to which you refer as a specimen has not reached me: if it does, I will send that also to Mr. Chapman.

I have been so much more even than usually occupied since your letter and its inclosures reached me that I have put off acknowledging them from day to day & am now obliged to be more concise in my acknowledgments than I should like to be. Let me first express my sincere regret at the cause Edition: current; Page: [91] of your long abstinence from writing which however great a private evil is a greater public loss.2

With regard to the manner in which I am spoken of in the Preface3 I could not possibly have any other objection to it than that it is far too complimentary, except indeed that it is not agreeable to me to be praised in the words of a man whom I so wholly disrespect as Milton,4 who with all his republicanism had the soul of a fanatic a despot & a tyrant. With respect to the difference of opinion between us on the point of political economy discussed in your book you do me no more than justice in believing that I am open to evidence & argument on that & on all subjects. But your argument turning on the annual exchange of the capital of a country against the sum of its money incomes, is not new to me: I am familiar with it in Chalmers5 & Sismondi6 & though you have commented on it & popularized it I do not think you have added anything to its substance. The only new point you have made against me is in p. 577 where you say that the fall of profits cannot arise from the increasing pressure on the fertility of the land inasmuch as that pressure has for some years been more than counteracted by agricultural improvements while yet there have been all the signs of diminution of profits. To this I should answer that I do not think there has in the last dozen years been any diminution of profits, but only of interest. If I had had your book some weeks sooner I should probably have added a few pages to the corresponding chapter of the new edition of mine:8 It is now too late to do so in this edition.

I could mention several serious differences between us on incidental points—as where you speak of Malthus’ population theory as “tottering”,9 where you express your fears of some great moral change for the worse in the English character from the gold discoveries10 as though it were now something Edition: current; Page: [92] worthy & respectable, noble & elevated, while to me it seems that almost any change would be for the better, & especially where you say that pol. ec. unless baptized into Xtianity is a child of the devil11 which is quite inconsistent with any good opinion of me & my writings for in my opinion what is called Xtianity is as thoroughly a child of the devil as any extant—but I have no time to enter into these things nor would there be room for them in a letter. I am heartily glad that you have recommenced writing & I hope to see you again rendering that important service in the diffusion of valuable thoughts & sentiments which no one now writing for the periodical press is so much disposed or so well qualified to render.

Many thanks for your note. My young relation’s2 health remains the same as it has been for many years—that is, practically strong enough for work, but not apparently so, and as he was not considered fit by the medical officer last year I fear it is not likely he would be so now. It is a very considerable disappointment, and I shall be greatly obliged to you if it suits you to give us another chance at a future time.

My objection to the passage relating to Chalmers2 did not turn as you seem to suppose, on the word “baptism”. My remarks did not apply Edition: current; Page: [93] to the phraseology, but to the meaning of the sentence—to the assertion that pol. ec. unless connected with Xtianity is “a true child of the devil.” Any reader would suppose that by Xtianity was here meant belief in the Bible and on your own interpretation I must still protest against the statement that Chalmers “began” the baptism in question. I do not know any pol. economist except perhaps M’Culloch3 to whom the accusation you bring against all who preceded Chalmers can be attributed even by the license of caricature—& I especially reject it with respect to A. Smith, Turgot, Say, Ricardo4 & my father not one of whom was a believer in Xtianity & none of whom regarded pol. ec. as anything but a subordinate though necessary branch of utility or as you prefer to term it “the doctrine of human welfare.”5

No men ever wrote to whom the charge of seeking in pol. ec. or in anything else a “justification of universal selfishness” or of any selfishness at all could be applied with less justice, & I cannot, on this point, accept any compliment at their expense. I confess I do not see the good that is to be done by swelling the outcry against pol. economists—or why they should be blamed because people do unjust or selfish things for the sake of money. I do not know what authority you have for saying that the clearing of Irish estates was “perpetrated in the name of pol. economy”6 any more than the clearing of English estates from the same motives in the time of the Tudors. But I do know that nearly all the pol. economists supported a poor law in Ireland7 in order to give the landlords an interest in fighting against the causes of poverty.

No doubt the opinion you have adopted respecting excess of capital must lead you to some moral (or immoral) conclusions very much opposed to those of pol. economists generally, especially the opinion that it is a virtue instead of a vice to be lavish in public & private expenditures. In this I can by no means agree with you as I think that some of the principal causes of the degraded moral state of the middle classes in this country is their absorption in the effort to make the greatest possible shew at needless & useless expense.

Respecting the point of pol. economy I do not see how Mr. Tooke’s doctrine,8 that prices depend on the aggregate of money incomes, at all helps to prove that increase of capital by saving lowers general prices. Whether £100 is employed in business or in personal expenditure it equally becomes part of somebody’s money income. Increase of production will not, I conceive, lower prices unless the production of money is an exception to Edition: current; Page: [94] the general increase. If it is so prices will fall, no doubt, but even then the fall of prices or what is the same thing, the increased value of money does not lower profits or incumber the markets with unsold goods: it only increases the burthen of all fixed money engagements. Neither do I believe that the time immediately preceding the fits of speculation which leads to a commercial crisis, is distinguished as on your theory it should be by a general fall of prices.

I will only add that the essay to which you make a complimentary allusion in p. 129 though written in 1830 was not published till 18369 so that your speaking of it as if it had been known & accessible in 1829 or 1830 gives an erroneous impression which I should much like to see corrected.

Your letter of 5th April has remained very long unanswered, but you are too well acquainted with the inevitable demands on time produced by the combination of literary & official employment, to need any other explanation of my silence. I regret that I am not able to give you the information you desire respecting cooperative associations in England.2 You appear however to be in communication with some of those who have taken part in the very insignificant attempts of the kind as yet made in this country, & they can doubtless tell you all that is to be told. Much could not be done while the law of partnership3 remained what it was up to a few days Edition: current; Page: [95] ago.4 According to that absurd law, the managing members of an association being joint owners of its funds could not steal or embezzle what was partly their own, & could not be made criminally responsible for any malversation; & the only civil tribunal which could determine disputes among partners was the Court of Chancery. You doubtless know enough of England to understand that the word Chancery is a name for litigation without end & expense without limits. In the Session of Parliament just closed an act has been passed, called the Industrial & Provident Partnerships Act,5 by which cooperative associations will in future be able to obtain a comparatively cheap & easy decision of differences & this removes a great obstacle to their formation & success. It will now be seen whether any considerable number of the English working people have the intellect and the love of independence to desire to be their own masters, and the sense of justice & honor which will fit them for being so. I am sorry to say my expectations at present are not sanguine. I do not believe that England is nearly as ripe as most of the Continental countries for this great improvement. The ownership of the instruments of labour by the labourers, can only be introduced by people who will make great temporary sacrifices such as can only be inspired by a generous feeling for the public good, or a disinterested devotion to an idea, not by the mere desire of more pay & less work. And the English of all classes are far less accessible to any large idea or generous sentiment than either Germans, French or Italians. They are so ignorant too as to pride themselves on their defect as if it were a virtue, & give it complimentary names, such as good sense, sobriety, practicalness, which are common synonyms for selfishness, shortsightedness, & contented acquiescence in commonplace. In France the success of the associations has been remarkable,6 & held out the brightest prospect for the emancipation of the working classes; but these societies are likely to share the fate of all other freedom & progress under the present military despotism.7 Many of the associations Edition: current; Page: [96] have already been suppressed & the remainder, it is said, are preparing to emigrate.

My wife & I regretted that we were absent from home when your daughter was staying in the neighbourhood of London, & were therefore unable to have the pleasure of calling on her. There are two or three subjects touched on in your letter on which I should be glad to say something if time permitted. But I have so much to do & so many letters to write that I must beg you to excuse me for stopping short. I am Dear Sir

Though I am persuaded it is unnecessary for any practical purpose, it will be satisfactory to me to put into writing the explanation of an accidental circumstance connected with the registry of our marriage at the Superintendant Registrar’s Office at Weymouth on the 21st of April 1851.—Our marriage by the Registrar Mr Richards was perfectly regular, and was attested as such by Mr Richards and by the Superintendant Registrar Mr Dodson, in the presence of both of whom, as well as of the two witnesses, we signed the register. But I was not aware that it was necessary to sign my name at full length, thinking that as in most other legal documents, the proper signature was the ordinary one of the person signing; and my ordinary signature being J. S. Mill, I at first signed in that manner; but on being told by the Registrar that the name must be written at full length, I did the only thing which occurred to me and what I believe the Registrar suggested, that is, I filled in the remaining letters of my name. As there was not sufficient space for them, they were not only written very small and close, but not exactly in a line with the initials and surname, and the signature consequently has an unusual appearance. The reason must be at once apparent to any one who sees it, as it is obvious that J. S. Mill was written first, and the remainder filled in afterwards. It is almost superfluous to say that this is not stated for your information—you being as well aware of it as myself, but in order that there may be a statement in existence of the manner in which the signature came to present this unusual appearance. It cannot possibly affect the legality of our marriage, which I have not the smallest doubt is as regular and valid as any marriage can be: but so long as it is possible that any doubt could for a moment suggest itself either to our own or to any other minds, I cannot feel at ease, and therefore, unpleasant as I know it must be to you, Edition: current; Page: [97] I do beg you to let us even now be married again,2 and this time at church, so that hereafter no shadow of a doubt on the subject can ever arise. The process is no doubt disagreeable, but I have thought much and anxiously about it, and I have quite made up my mind that however annoying the fact, it is better to undergo the annoyance than to let the matter remain as it is. Therefore I hope you will comply with my earnest wish—and the sooner it is done the better.

On my return from a month’s excursion in North Wales I find your note and card. Pray accept our best thanks for your and Mrs Norman’s2 kind invitation to Bromley, but which we could not have had the pleasure to accept. We find it impossible to give up the time required by general society and therefore are obliged to decline many invitations which would otherwise be very agreeable and to limit ourselves to a small circle of the same opinions and pursuits with our own.

The sheets2 you sent are of no use for my purpose, which was to give away, as they are not separate copies but contain part of another article—& being useless I return them, with the exception of one copy; but I do not think it worth the expense of reprinting.

The tables appended to the inclosed official memorandum from the Statistical Department of the India House contain the best information we can give on the three points on which you made inquiries. As I expected the balance of trade against India is much greater than the million & a half you mentioned—but the explanation is, the remittances for the £800,000 dividends on India stock, the expense of the home establishments, furlough allowances, pensions, stores sent from this country &c. You will see that this “tribute” paid by India does not drain India of the precious metals, as the imports of them into India vastly exceed the exports. About the trade with Persia we know nothing except so far as it passes through Bombay—as probably most of it does.

The inclosed explanatory note is from the chief of the Statistical Dept.3 I am

Having shewn your note to Mr Thornton2 I have since received a letter from him which I inclose. The circuitous mode of remittance through China seems to explain the anomalies. India does not export to England more merchandise than she receives, but she exports to China several millions worth of opium without return.

All the facts in the tables are at the service of any one to whom you may wish to communicate them.

I shall be very happy to see M. Vauthier,2 and to further his objects in any way I am able—though as to the Political Economy I shall be obliged to dissuade him, a publisher at Paris having a translation nearly ready with my authorisation.3

I am Dear Sir yours faithfully

J. S. Mill

Edition: current; Page: [101]

1853

I can sincerely say that it is a clear, full, and, in my judgment, accurate exposition of the principles of the subject,2 and if you are as successful in treating all the other branches of political economy, as you have been in this important branch, your qualifications for teaching it are of a high order.

The suggestion in the paper2 you sent me is intended to meet a difficulty which has always appeared to me one of the Edition: current; Page: [102] chief stumbling blocks of representative government.3 Whoever could devise a means of preventing minorities from being, as they now are, swamped, and enabling them to obtain a share of the representation proportional to their numbers and not more than proportional, would render a great service.4 Whether the plan proposed would do this, and to what objections it may be liable, I should be sorry to be obliged to say without more consideration than I have yet given to it. One thing seems to me evident: that if this plan were adopted, no constituency ought to elect fewer than three members. For if the number be two, as the proposed plan would enable a minority to count for double its number, any minority exceeding one third could ensure half the representation; which, unless the minority can be presumed to consist of wiser or better persons than the majority, would be contrary to all principle.

One very strong recommendation of the plan of cumulative votes5 occurs to me, which is not mentioned in the Memorandum. If we suppose a voter to determine his vote by the personal merits of the candidates, and not solely by their being on the same side with himself in the common party divisions, it will frequently happen that he greatly prefers one of the candidates, and is comparatively indifferent to all the others, so that he would, if he could, give all his votes to that one. This wish is most likely to be felt by the best voters, and in favour of the best candidates, and it seems to me right that strength of preference should have some influence as well as the mere number of persons preferring. To allow the cumulative vote would be one of the best ways which occur to me of enabling quality of support to count as well as quantity. The candidates most likely to benefit by it would be those who were too good for the mass of the constituency; those for example, whose election was endangered by some honest but unpopular vote or opinion, and who for that very reason would probably be supported with redoubled zeal by the better minority, and their election made the first object.

I do not see the force of your objection respecting bribery. No doubt if a candidate depended solely on bribed votes, he would find it easier to succeed Edition: current; Page: [103] if every bribed voter could give two or three votes for him instead of one. But to carry an election by bribing everybody is only possible with smaller constituencies than ought to exist. In large or even moderate constituencies, the bribed are only the two or three hundred who in a nearly balanced state of parties turn the scale. Now in this case the minority can get no corrupt advantage from the cumulative vote unless they limit their aim to a part of the representation; and if they do this, the cumulative vote may probably enable them to attain their object without bribing. Thus, if there are two members to be returned, and the minority will be content with returning one, a minority exceeding a third would have no inducement to bribe, but only a minority of less than a third. At present the reverse is the case: a minority of less than a third has no chance of succeeding by bribery, while a minority of more than a third has. The cumulative vote therefore displaces, but does not seem to me to increase, the inducement to bribe.

The point is well worth consideration in framing a new Reform Bill,6 which, to be any real improvement, ought not to be a mere imitation and extension of the Reform Bill of 1832. There are, as it seems to me, three great and perfectly safe improvements, which could hardly be successfully resisted if a Government proposed them. One is to have no small constituencies: this might be done by grouping the small towns into districts. Another is to let in the principle of an educational qualification, by requiring from all voters, in addition to any property or ratepaying conditions that may be imposed, at least reading, writing, and arithmetic. The third is to open the franchise to women who fulfil the same conditions on which it is granted to men; in the same manner as they already vote for boards of guardians. They have as much interest in good laws as men have, and would vote at least as well. Electoral districts seem to me needless, and ballot would now be a step backward instead of forward.7

I beg to apologise for not having answered sooner, but I did not like to give an opinion without consideration, and being pressed for time I was not able before to give the subject even the degree of consideration which I have now done.—I am, dear Lord Monteagle, very truly yours,

I am obliged to you for your propositions with respect to publishing either notes to the Analysis, or my contributions to reviews,2 but in the first place I am engaged on a new work of my own,3 so that I have not time to spare, and if I had, I should hardly like to publish anything without first offering it to Mr Parker with whom I have been so many years connected as publisher.

I do not think it will be worth while to write anything on the politics of the day at the end of the session. The doings of the session, though useful, have been on too small a scale to afford subjects, and the two principal topics, the financial measures and the India question, will be decided and the interest gone, before the next publication of the review. For large views on any subject there is daily less and less public in this country.

I shall be happy to review the last three volumes of Mr Grote’s History.2 I had engaged to review the 9th and 10th volumes for Mr Empson but finding that they hardly afforded sufficient material, I had agreed with him to put off writing until the volume now published could be included. I think with you that there is now matter enough for an article, though more might have been made of the subject if there had been a greater amount of dissertation and discussion in the volumes. I am glad you will not want the article for the July number.

My opinions on these subjects are very much the same with yours except where they are mixed up with other subjects. I conceive that in the present state of the distribution of wealth in this country any additional land brought into the market is likely to be bought by rich people & not by poor. The present question however does not turn upon whether partition is an evil or a good2—but upon whether to save the owner of a landed estate from the necessity of selling part of it (in this case a very small part) he ought to be exempted from paying his fair share of the taxes.3 This is so impudent a pretension that it hardly admits of any more complete exposure than is made by the simplest statement. The reason would seem just as well for dispensing them from paying any taxes whatever, or from paying their debts, for they may be unable to do either of these without selling their land. If the inheritors of land wish to keep it entire let them save the tax out of their income. Gladstone allows them several years to do it in.4 No large proprietor ought to have any difficulty in this, except those who are deeply mortgaged, & the sooner they can be induced to sell, the better. That is a proposition which may be very safely assumed in these days.

I do not know any writers who have discussed taxes on succession at much length, except some of the French Socialists,5 & they (besides that they are bad political economists) derive their arguments from premises not suited to the atmosphere of the H. o. C.

I think that when the India Bill2 has passed which it virtually has already, the time will be gone by for an article on the form of government. All questions respecting the form of government will be closed for some years to come & it seems to me that nothing practical can come of any writing on the subject—& there are very few readers who would be interested in the mere theory. What I should write on India at present would be only, or chiefly, on the administrative part of the subject. I should try to correct the ignorant and dishonest misrepresentations of the present mode of governing India, & at the same time to point out how it may be improved. I could write such an article for the Edinburgh if you would like to have it—but not in time for the January number.

Allow me to thank you for a copy of your pamphlet on the Law of Partnership.2 Such subjects are not often discussed with so much closeness of reasoning & precision of expression; & it is still more rare to find the question of justice separated from that of expediency & made paramount Edition: current; Page: [107] to it. I prefer to say “justice” rather than, in your words “natural justice”, both because Nature is often grossly unjust & because I do not think that the first spontaneous sentiment of justice always agrees with that which is the result of enlightened reflexion.

As you do me the honor to ask my opinion of your argument, I think that as much of it as is in defence of the commandite principle is sound, & conclusively stated. But you have not convinced me that either justice or expediency requires the unlimited liability of all who take part in the management, or in other words that there ought to be no compagnies anonymes.3 Justice, it appears to me, is fully satisfied if those who become creditors of the partnership know beforehand that they will have no claim beyond the amount of the subscribed capital. The points of additional information mentioned in pages 5 & 7 & which you say cannot be possessed by the public, do not seem to me required in justice, even if they were in point of expediency. Volenti non fit injuria: if a person chooses to lend either to an individual or a company knowing that the borrowers only pledge a certain sum & not their whole property for the debt, I cannot see that there is any injustice done merely because the lender cannot watch that certain sum & know at all times where it is & what is being done with it. I differ from you also though with somewhat less confidence on the question of expending. I do not doubt that the unlimited liability of railway directors would be some additional security for prudent management, but the additional security would I think be too dearly purchased by the renunciation of all power in the shareholders to control the directors or to change them. The publicity afforded by the periodical meetings of shareholders, by the necessity of laying before them the entire state of the concern & their power of verifying the statements, seems to me a far greater protection to the public as well as to shareholders than the liability of the directors to the full extent of their property especially considering how imperfect a check to rash speculation this is in private transactions.

I send what I have to say on Mr Grote’s History.2 It is as much a review of the book generally as of the last three volumes, but it gives a tolerably Edition: current; Page: [108] full account of their contents; and as the history of Athenian greatness is concluded in them, the occasion is a natural one for surveying the whole history.

If you print the article in the October number, I am very desirous to have a proof early if possible, as I shall be away from home in three or four weeks time.

My own dearest one! how cold the old place looked & felt when I returned to it2—I sat in the room usually warmed by her presence, & in the usual place, & looked at her vacant chair, wishing for the time when it will be again filled, & for the time, much sooner than that, when I shall see her dear handwriting—which is the pleasure of absence. I went to bed very early, after studying the big Physiology3 nearly all the evening.

It rained torrents in the night & in the morning Kate4 knocked at the door & said that the water had come in again—it had indeed, in at least a dozen places, reaching as far as the beau milieu of the room, so there is another plastering job inevitable—& it was every way unlucky as there was no getting at the place to bale out the water, which lay apparently so deep that no doubt the pipe was stopt up. There was nothing to be done but to go again to Smith’s & say that the place he had mended was worse than before—Again unluckily the old fellow was out, & not expected for a day or two but his son promised to go immediately, & take a ladder. It is very disagreeable having any workman there with nobody in the house, but it could not be helped.

I sent the article to Lewis5 today after revising it on all points. I have cut the knot of “the grandest passage” by making it “the most celebrated” & have altered the two “greatests” to greatest commonwealth & most distinguished citizen—in the other. The “political education” place which I said I Edition: current; Page: [109] would try to strengthen in ideas instead of in words, I have done so—I hope the proof will come in time for full consideration—& now dearest dearest angel adieu till tomorrow when I shall write again & perhaps shall have had the happiness of a word, though I will not let myself count upon it.

Ah my own dearest, if you knew the pleasure your precious letter would give, you would not think there needed a “better” tomorrow. How sweet of her in all the bustle & fatigue of arriving & the bother of not finding lodgings to write such a darling letter. I almost hope you have gone on to Teignmouth as there was nothing to be had facing the sea. As for me the whole time seems passed in waiting for her—but it will not be so during the longer absence for I shall have some steady job of writing to begin & finish which will prevent the time from seeming long & for amusement I have a scheme for looking over the plants.2 I shall look for some tomorrow if the weather lets me go out. It rained very much last night but it has not yet rained today. The time does not hang heavy darling, for I have always her to think of, & our nice home has now begun to recall her presence instead of only her absence. As for health I was not quite so well the last day or two as the three or four days before, but I have been better again this morning. Like all my former little ailments this sticks very close & varies very much from day to day.3 I shall be quite content if it goes off within a year. Meanwhile your dear love & kindness would make it quite a pleasure being unwell if only you would not be anxious my dearest dearest angel. I have seen nobody except Grote who called yesterday but have had a note from Adderley4 which I inclose with the answer I propose sending when dearest one has made it right. The men came yesterday but, Kate5 says, only staid about 10 minutes during which they cleared the pipe & “hammered down something.” The water has not come in since.6 Adieu with a thousand loves. If it is fine tomorrow & she gets this in time she can think of him somewhere about Reigate & Dorking.7

Edition: current; Page: [110]

[On a separate small piece of paper]

Druce8 has sent merely the inclosed. She will no doubt have said everything suitable from me to the madre & C.9

My own precious darling wife what sweet words! what good it did & does me to read that one word—she knows which—the sweetest word she can say—when she can say or write that, I know how she must be loving me & feeling all that it is happiest to think of & all that I most wish for. I needed it too, for words of love in absence are as they always were, what keeps the blood going in the veins—but for them whenever I am not anxious & triste à mourir for fear she should not be loving me, I should have only a sort of hybernating existence like those animals found in the inside of a rock. But her dear darling letters are only a less good than her still sweeter presence & voice & looks & spoken words. The time does not seem long & is now very nearly half over.

I wrote on Saturday & directed exactly as before—it is vexatious that she should not have received it on Sunday morning—I hope the reason was some of their Sunday nonsense & that she did not suppose I had not written.

I had a good walk yesterday—it was a fine bright day with a few short showers only two of which were at all heavy & an umbrella & a hedge sheltered me completely from those. I went to Reigate by the railway, then walked six hours with a good deal of climbing & after having tea & a leg & wing of cold chicken at Dorking felt quite able & inclined to walk to Betchworth between four & five miles more. There I took the railway, & walking across our heath home was hardly more tired than I often am in coming home from the office. I feel no worse for it as to the ailment & much the better for it otherwise. I saw the country well & it looked very beautiful but somehow our daily view seemed much pleasanter. I saw the comet too2—it was like a reddish streak, much brightest at the lower end, as bright as Edition: current; Page: [111] a large star but without so definite an outline—the redness I suppose was because it was in twilight & near the horizon, like the red colour of the moon when newly risen! I hope you have seen or will see it, but it must be looked for much earlier than we did. I saw it before half past eight & it was then near setting. As it is going towards the sun, it sets every evening earlier after sunset & at last will be quite lost in the sun’s rays.

The note inclosed came on Saturday evening. The other from Henry Solly3 seems to me very impudent, putting together what it does not contain with what it does.

This is the first time since we were married my darling wife that we have been separated & I do not like it at all—but your letters are the greatest delight & as soon as I have done reading one I begin thinking how soon I shall have another. Next to her letters the greatest pleasure I have is writing to her. I have written every day since Friday except the day there was no post—I am glad the cause of your not getting Saturday’s letter was the one I guessed & that you did get it at last. This time I have absolutely nothing to tell except my thoughts, & those are wholly of you—As for occupation, after I get home I read as long as I can at the thick book3—yesterday evening I fairly fell asleep over it, but I shall read it to the end, for I always like to get at the latest generalizations on any scientific subject & that in particular is a most rapidly progressive subject just at present & is so closely connected with the subjects of mind & feeling that there is always a chance of something practically useful turning up. I am very much inclined to take the Essay on Nature4 again in hand & rewrite it as thoroughly as I did the review of Grote5—that is what it wants—it is my old way of working & I do not think I have ever done anything well which was not done in that way. I am almost sorry for the Edition: current; Page: [112] engagement with Lewis about India6 as I think it would have been a much better employment of the time to have gone on with some more of our Essays. We must finish the best we have got to say, & not only that, but publish it while we are alive—I do not see what living depositary there is likely to be of our thoughts, or who in this weak generation that is growing up will even be capable of thoroughly mastering & assimilating your ideas, much less of reoriginating them—so we must write them & print them, & then they can wait till there are again thinkers. But I shall never be satisfied unless you allow our best book,7 the book which is to come, to have our two names in the title page. It ought to be so with everything I publish, for the better half of it all is yours, but the book which will contain our best thoughts, if it has only one name to it, that should be yours. I should like every one to know that I am the Dumont8 & you the originating mind, the Bentham, bless her!

I hope the weather has improved as much with you as it has here—but it does not look settled yet. With all loving thoughts & wishes

My dearest angel! she will have got this morning the letter I wrote yesterday after receiving hers. I am so sorry she should have had the teaze she mentions—it would have been so much better—knowing ce que c’est que ce monde-là & having forgotten to ask you the question, to have done exactly as usual.

Dieu merci the time of absence is nearly over now. The only new thing here is that on Monday evening, (the first time I went into the back garden,) I found the ground strewed with a good deal more than half of all the pears in the garden. Next morning I told Kate to pick them up but she said she had already done it. In the case of the only two trees where the pears were nearly or quite ripe, they were most of them half eaten, I suppose by birds. It is seldom such stormy weather in the fruit time as this year—but it has been tolerably fine for some days now—I have been hoping that you had the same benefit.

Edition: current; Page: [113]

I went to Coulson2 this morning who finding me no better for the colchicum (though no worse) & not thinking that the symptoms are those of congestion or anything of that sort, was fairly puzzled & proposed to me to go with him tomorrow afternoon to Dr Golding Bird,3 as he did before to Prout4—or rather I should say proposed to me to meet him there. I hope the result will be as successful as it was with Prout—at all events we shall have two opinions.

I am glad that you are so well pleased with the article on Grote.2 More might certainly have been said about the Sicilian history, & the Anabasis, but as those parts of the history do not illustrate anything very important, I proposed passing rapidly to those which did. I would however have given the quintessence of the chapter on Dion if it had been possible to do it in any moderate space.

You will see what I have done in consequence of your various suggestions. As you say, the tendency of [the] Athenian alliance must have been to favor democracy, but Grote has pointed out several instances in which one is surprised to find important members of the alliance under the government of oligarchies.3 I have made a little alteration in the paragraph about Greek slavery,4 but it might look too much like an apology for slavery.

I shall be very happy to look at the article5 you mention if you are able to send it at latest on Thursday, as we are going to the Continent on Saturday.6

The article2 you sent seems to me very good. The writer evidently knows his subject, has taken pains to be right, & his praise & blame are in the right places. If it is read as I hope it may be by those who can influence matters at Madras, it is likely to do much good. As to its interfering with what I may write, there are only about two pages which could possibly do so, those in which the writer comments on the ryotwar system,3 in a manner from which I partly dissent but I do not think this any reason for omitting them as some difference of opinion between different articles seems to me to be even desirable.

I am writing this in the warm salle à manger of the Hotel Bristol after a northern wintry day, not par façon de parler but literally, for the ponds were frozen hard all the way, & the little waterfalls by the road side not only hung with icicles but were encrusted with ice so as to seem frozen bodily—However I did not suffer from cold thanks to the wrapper & your dear kindness. Edition: current; Page: [115] As far as Toulon I did very well, I had the coupé & an educated Frenchman in it though looking below the gentleman class as so many of them do—he was d’un certain âge—we talked history, literature & at last politics, ending with the present state of things about which we perfectly agreed—he had some sense & some liberality. We got to Toulon about 10 & I had two hours to walk about—it is a cheerful rather busy town but was soon seen & the keen wind drove me at last into a café for the sake of fire. The two inns praised by Plana2 & Murray, the Croix d’or & de Malte,3 are close together in the little Place des [Foires2] which like all the other Places is planted with plane trees, which must be very agreeable in summer. From Toulon to Marseille there was no coupé to be had & I was in a full interior with four women superabounding in clothes which & the smallness of the diligence made me excessively cramped & uncomfortable during the seven hours we passed on the road of which however half an hour was spent in stopping to help another diligence which had broken a spring—a private carriage also stopped & parted with its fresh horses taking tired ones to help the carriage on. I was struck as one often is with the really fraternal & Christian feeling of the French on such occasions. The four women looked about the class of Mme Goutant4 but two of them had pillows edged with lace & all took immense pains to be comfortable—Happily they had talk enough with one another so that my silence did not look like the ill manners of ces anglais. You see dear I am writing like a dull & tired person but it is convenient to begin my letter now & I shall finish it & put it in the post at Arles where I shall have a pretty long stay—I shall go by the train which leaves here at 9 & gets to Arles at 11 & shall leave again at ½ past 3 to arrive at Avignon at 5. This seems a good inn as far as I can judge—I shall be able to say more tomorrow. I sat in the cramped diligence thinking of every ill that could happen to my precious one, but I have got over the black vision now. I saw Lily5 at the window & hope she saw me shake about a handkerchief. Mme Suzanne tried to make me pay 3 f. a night but when I objected gave it up readily saying I had parfaitement raison—this seems her way—to try it on & take it off quick if it does not fit. I remembered in the carriage that I had not asked a very essential question about Kate6 viz. how she has been provided with money hitherto whether by money left with her (& if so, how much) or given by Haji. Did you ever read a letter so unlike me, but you will be glad to have any news of me & you will like me to write feeling comfortable, alone by a good fire. The pen & ink do credit to the name of Bristol. I have just been reading Edition: current; Page: [116] Galignani7 which talks of excessively cold weather in England—Palmerston’s successor8 is not appointed but it is said that Graham is to succeed him & Fox Maule9 to take the Admiralty in the room of Graham. The papers are attacking Ld Aberdeen10 for want of spirit about Turkey11 & it is reported that Louis Napoleon has called on the English Govt to know its mind & say what that mind is.

Thursday 1 oclock. I am now writing in a much queerer place, the salle à manger of the Hotel du Forum at Arles with people dining all round me—I shall imitate them presently. The Bristol is dear—including service I paid 10 fr for bed, supper (tea, bifteck & potatoes) & breakfast. It is a very quiet place & the people civil, prompt & unobtrusive but the apartments begin up two flights of stairs, the entresol being wholly occupied by the salle à manger & the people who keep the house. This would be fatal if it were not very likely that the case is the same at the other inns. The stairs however are very easy. I came here by railway in two hours & have just done seeing this strange old place with its curious old cathedral & its ugly Roman amphitheatre—curious because so very perfect & making one see so exactly how those old rascals managed their savage exhibitions. It is still bitterly cold & the people here & at Marseilles seem to feel it as much as I do. One said “Il ne fera pas plus froid au Nord”. It is one satisfaction that I now know the winter travelling will not hurt me. My cough is if anything better. I think the chief thing which is amiss with me is what Gurney12 said, the action of the heart—it goes gallop, gallop, & flutter, flutter, especially in bed, though I have been only one day without taking the digitalis which was intended expressly against that. I have not cared much about the scenery as I came along—when at its best it is much like what we have seen & I feel sated with it. I think I never wrote her so long a letter so little worth reading but I write what comes first & what I have to tell. She knows under it all there is the deepest & strongest & truest love. Bless her, only good of my life.

I owe the having time to write today to my dearest one, to not having been able to get a place—You know how often in France one has to pass the day at an inn & travel at night—it is so with me now. When I got here at 7 yesterday (the train having kept me waiting at Arles an hour & a half beyond its time) I found no possibility of getting on this morning & the only certain place at all a coupé place at 5 this evening. I am promised to get to Lyons in 24 hours—I do not know by how many hours the promise will be broken—those who arrived from Lyons this morning had snow almost all the way & were many hours behind time. A traveller who arrived from Montpellier last evg says the thermometer there is 7 degrees (16 of Fahrenheit) below freezing & that snow is a foot deep in the streets of Beziers. There cannot be more wintry weather for travelling & all my wish is to get through it as fast as possible. I have given up the Meulins project unless I find when at Lyons that it is the shortest way, which may well be as the steamboats on the Saône are stopped by the ice & there is therefore little likelihood of a place by the diligence to Chàlon for some days—you see I may be detained a long while at Lyons. I have performed the painful duty of seeing this town in a really terrible north wind which roared all night most tempestuously. I was surprised at the great size of the place. The cathedral & still more its position, the buildings adjoining &c are well worth seeing—I had another motive for going out which was to buy something to put on my head at night for the hat is terribly in the way. I bought a decent cloth travelling cap. This inn (l’Europe) seems good, it has plenty of rooms au premier & an easy staircase, of the eating I only know a very good sweet omlet & excellent tea (as at Marseilles) besides good coffee & excellent butter which was the only thing bad at Marseilles the people saying in excuse that there is no good butter in the place. My occupation here is reading newspapers, especially Galignani of which the last received announces Palmerston’s reacceptance of office2—of course he has been bought by the sacrifice of whatever in the reform bill he objected to. The bill is sure to be something poor & insignificant. The Edition: current; Page: [118] Daily News3 & Examiner4 are attacking Albert for interfering in politics. He seems to be generally blamed for the temporizing inefficient conduct of the ministry about Turkey5 & is supposed to be Austrian in disposition since the Belgian marriage6—probably mere gossip & scandal of which there is always as much going in courts as elsewhere. How I long to know how my darling is—how delighted I shall be to get to Boulogne—but how long it may be first it is difficult to tell. I owe an apology to Hyères for they say this cold has lasted 8 or 10 days so that Hyères is really, comparatively, mild. If I am detained at Lyons I will write from there. Adieu my perfect one. A thousand loves & blessings & kisses—How I long for the first sight of that dear handwriting. What a pleasure to think she is not cold. But for the wrapper her kindness provided I should have been frozen & now my darling life, adieu with a myriad of blessings.

1854

I fill my letters with nothing but the chances & mischances of this journey—but I know they are interesting to my dearest one & I shall write better letters when I am quiet at home. Home! how completely home it is even in her absence—but how completely also the place where she is & which I am so happy to have seen & to know, is home too—I am looking with the mind’s eye across that Place des Palmiers which cold as I used to think it, seems almost summer to me now—& seeing that beautiful prospect instead of these tame snowcovered fields. But I will take up the history where I left it—The diligence by which I took my place from Avignon & which was called Messageries Françaises des maîtres de poste, left a little after five, & after four changes of carriage, at Montelimart,2 Valence, Vienne & Givors (the last piece was part of the St. Etienne railway) brought me to Lyons almost frozen at ten on Saturday. I was in despair about getting on, as it was so late to go about finding offices in that large place & I had heard all the way of the impossibility of getting places to Châlon & the fabulous prices paid for them, so I thought myself lucky in being offered a place for 7h the next morning—I made it secure & then went to the Univers & on New Year’s morning made my way in the dark to the office just opposite the place where we landed—They promised I should arrive in 12 hours, or as there was snow perhaps in 14. The carriage turned out to be an omnibus with 8 places which generally goes between Lyons & Villefranche a place about a quarter of the way but which since the steamboats have been stopped, takes passengers to Châlon. It made me pay 25 fr. though others I found were only charged 18 & 20 fr. At the time at which we ought to have been at Châlon we were only at Mâcon where we were kept 3 hours on pretext of waiting for another carriage. I had promised myself a night’s sleep at Châlon, & to leave this morning by the first train & go on by a night train to Boulogne, so saving a day: but we arrived here at 7 this morning when the train was gone & there is no other but the express at 1¾ so I must pass a useless night at Paris. This delay was only Edition: current; Page: [120] partly owing to the snow of which up to Mâcon there was not very much & only a little of the delay was owing to the driver’s knocking against a stone hidden as he said by the snow & breaking the pole of the carriage (at 11 at night): for this only caused about 1½ hour of the twelve hours’ delay. The whole concern is a piece of knavery as those small diligence concerns are apt to be. There were one or two agreeable men especially one Frenchman & a young Savoyard in the crowded little omnibus which made the whole affair a little less tiresome & provoking. I am now at the trois faisans & shall make them shew me their bed rooms in case you like to come there in spring. The inn at Avignon, l’Europe, was cheap as well as good—only the table d’hôte is dear, having an inscription that on account of the énorme increase of the price of wine & of la plupart des vivres the table d’hôte must be raised to 3½ f. except for diligence travellers who have never time to do more than diner à la hôte (considerate).

My adored one will know without my telling her, how the very instant after I arrived here I rushed through the sloppy melting snow to the post office tormenting myself all the way lest the man should pretend there was no letter. When I got the darling word how I devoured it & how happy & in spirits I was made by the good news of her health & the exquisite proofs of her love that its most precious words contained. But it disappointed me that she had not yet received my first letter, which I put into the post at Arles on Thursday afternoon: which would reach Marseille that evening & I hoped would go to Hyères that night so that she would get it before she wrote—I pleased myself with the thought that she would have a letter sooner than she expected & that her first would tell me she had received it. However no doubt it came right; as it was independent of the man at the post office, having been directed in the same manner as this, which has also been the case with the two I have since written, from Avignon & Châlon; & will be the case with all I write. To go on with my adventures: the Trois Faisans is a second rate inn apparently but has one very large & good salon au premier & plenty of tolerable though not very large bedrooms. I did not go to bed but went on by the train at ½ past 1 & got to Paris very nicely & Edition: current; Page: [121] comfortably the carriages being warmed. I arrived at past 12 at Lawson’s Bedford Hotel, which is close to the Victoria & can almost be seen from it, being the fourth or fifth house in the Rue de l’Arcade, the street which turns off at the fruitshop. It seems a good inn & not dear, & at least to voyageurs who sit in what the waiter called le coffee room. I saw a very nice set of rooms au second & was told they were the like au troisième, those on the premier which must have been if anything better were let avec cuisine which the landlady said she only does in winter. The house looks about as large outwardly as the Victoria, not larger. One recommendation is that it has an omnibus of its own to the northern railroad. As I arrived so late & had not had the night I expected at Châlon, I thought I would give myself a long night at Paris, & not attempt to go by the 9 o’clock train, but wait till the next at one o’clock which I found would do very well as the steamboat next day (Wednesday) did not go till half past one—& I thought now my troubles were over, but the worst was to come & my experience of winter travelling was to be completed by being snowed up for near 24 hours on a railway. We got in pretty good time to Amiens but came to a halt between it & Abbeville—Seven hours we remained on the line while messages were sent to Abbeville & Amiens for another engine—but none came, from the first because there were none there, from the second for some reason I could get no explanation of. At last they got up the steam again & took on the train by half at a time to Abbeville where it was declared we must halt till the road was cleared. I & a few others got into an omnibus & went to the town & I sat by the kitchen fire of the hotel du Commerce from ½ past 3 till daylight when we were sent for by a blunder of the railway people who first told us we could now go, & then when we were seated in the carriages, that we could not, so there all the passengers remained unable to leave the waiting room because told that we might go at any minute till half past two yesterday afternoon. The bore was immense, the passengers being more than half of them English & Americans, the most vulgar & illiterate—& the one or two English & French that were better kept aloof like me & we did not find each other out. I found two of them at this inn at Boulogne, an Englishman who it appeared was a coachmaker & a Frenchman settled in England in some business whose English was quite undistinguishable from an Englishman’s, & found them rather sensible people. To the bore of the detention was added another, viz that somebody went off with my umbrella from the salle d’attente, & I shall have to buy one here. The lost one was luckily old, having been several times covered, but I regret it as you darling liked the stick. I came here to the Hotel Folkestone, one of those on the quai opposite the landing place, thinking I would try it as it was recommended in Galignani2 & it seems a very tolerable place, having both salons & bedrooms Edition: current; Page: [122] on the ground floor & good ones too though not very large. As for my health which she writes so sweetly about, I could not expect not to catch fresh cold now & then. I have been better one day & worse another & am on the whole much the same as at Hyères. I am still of the same opinion about the chief mischief being overaction of the heart which is checked but not conquered by the digitalis I have been taking ever since Avignon—& now heaven bless my own dearest angel.

How sweetest sweet of the darling to write a second time on Friday after she received the letter—& how happy it made me to see her letter here on arriving, among the heap of trumpery [words obliterated] reports &c that the post had brought here in the 3 months—along with a few letters that required attending to about which [words obliterated] tomorrow or next day when I have had more time to look at them. I now write, among what bustle you can imagine, only to say by the very first post what she was anxious to know—how I got here. I had a very smooth passage of only two hours & succeeded in not being sick at all. I got home between 10 & 11 & had a warm reception from Kate & (for him) from Haji. The ground here is covered with snow, & where the snow (at Blackheath) has been partly scraped off or beaten down it is frozen again & very slippery so that getting to town was some trouble & the streets are sloppy with the half melted snow so that London looks its ugliest & feels its most disagreeable. I had not been in my room ten minutes when Hill,2 Thornton3 & various others poured in one after another with their congratulations & enquiries. There seems to have been a general impression that I was so ill that there was no knowing when I might come back (or perhaps if I shd ever come back at all) so that they generally said I looked better than they expected. Several asked if it was not imprudent to return at this season & in this weather. Ellice4 received me with the cordial manner which imposed on me before & which his note so belied, said he had been Edition: current; Page: [123] uneasy about me, having heard from Sykes,5 it did not clearly appear what, but he said he had feared I was worse. I said I had not written again after my second letter because I hoped every week to be able to come. When I said I had been harassed by the thought that I was wanted here he said he would not tell me how much I had been wanted—but I could gather nothing of whether he had really felt the want of me or not. He as well as Hill, Thornton & others asked the questions that might be expected about your health & in a manner which shewed interest. Peacock6 alone asked not a single question about your health & hardly about mine but struck into India house subjects & a visit he has had from James.7 Grote & Prescott8 called together today, as they said to enquire if I was returned & were very warm, especially Grote, in their expressions of sympathy & interest about your illness. It is odd to see the sort of fragmentary manner in which news gets about—Grote had heard of you as dangerously ill but not of my being ill at all, & of your illness as a fever but not of the rupture of a bloodvessel. Grote is vastly pleased with the article in the Edinburgh9— & a propos I found here a letter from Mrs Grote, of complimentation on the article, which though little worthy of the honour of being sent to you I may as well inclose. The impudence of writing to me at all & of writing in such a manner is only matched by the excessive conceit of the letter. Grote alluded to it saying Mrs Grote had written to me after reading the article—I merely answered that I had found a note from her on arriving. There is a friendly note from Sykes written after we left which I will inclose tomorrow when I can send with it a sketched answer to it—Adieu my most beloved & I shall write soon again.

I am very sorry that my absence from England prevented me until yesterday from receiving your two notes, as I fear that by waiting for an answer to Edition: current; Page: [124] them, the publication of your pamphlet2 (the proof of which I have read with great pleasure) may have been delayed. No doubt, however, it has now long been published3 & I hope, much read. If I had received your note in time I should have requested you to make use of any part of my letter to Ld Monteagle4 in any manner which you might think useful, with no other reservation than that of not implying that I am a positive supporter of your plan—for though it is very likely I may become so, I have not yet seen it sufficiently discussed, to be aware of all the objections to which it may possibly be liable. I am Dr Sir

I found your note2 on arriving in town two days ago. I am sorry that I cannot give you any of the information you require as I am very little acquainted with recent writings on Jurisprudence & especially with those relating to special departments such as that you refer to.

I have to thank you for your pamphlet.3 I entirely agree in your conclusion—& your description of the mode of action of public boards ought to carry weight, as it is so evidently derived from actual experience.

No letter today darling—but I did not count upon it—& Lily’s to Haji which arrived on Saty evening gave news of my darling one up to Monday. I wonder when I shall be able to write her a letter not filled with petty details. However as the details must be written about, the best plan is to knock them off as quickly as possible & get rid of them. I looked over the bills yesterday & found that the quantity of bread which we thought would be sufficient now, viz a 2 lb loaf every day from Monday to Friday & a 4 lb on Saty, is exactly what has been taken all along, including even the time when Haji was away. I asked Kate the meaning of this & she said she didn’t have potatoes for herself & that she could not take less than a 2 lb loaf—evidently unsatisfactory—but I find from Haji that she has had her aunt staying with her the greater part of the whole time including his absence, which leaves less to be accounted for. Haji says he told you of this (the aunt) at Nice—perhaps it is a good thing by preventing the worse things which you feared. The butter has been pretty regularly a pound of fresh & half pound of salt each week. My return can hardly increase the pound to 1½ lb. Nothing else struck me as noticeable but Parsons2 has not sent any bills for a month owing it is said to Mrs P. having had an accident on the ice—but I shall make him send them. Should the bills be now paid? The birds are in fine feather, & Kate says, sing much more & better than at first & eat immensely. I have answered Marshall3 & Urquhart.4 To M. I said that if it were still in time which of course it is not, I would have bid him do with my letter anything he thought useful, only not to imply that I was a positive supporter of his plan, as it had not yet been sufficiently discussed to bring out all the objections &c. Urquhart I advised to publish his paper5 (a very good one) as a pamphlet but offered if he liked to recommend it to Fraser.6 There was also an application from the Soc. of Arts7 saying that they have to adjudicate a prize to some work on jurisprudence & asking me to send them a list of the three best recently published, in order of merit. I answered acknowledging the honor Edition: current; Page: [126] but saying I was not sufficiently acquainted with recent writings on jurisprudence to be a qualified witness as to their claims to the prize. The Kensington letters8 I inclose, as it is best you should see all that comes from that quarter—& along with them, a note I have just written to my mother. I have looked through the Edinburgh for October—the article on Grote9 reads, to my mind, slighter & flimsier than I thought it would. There is another article by Greg10 on Parly reform shewing that he had seen our letter to Ld Monteagle11 (the one Marshall12 writes about) for he has adopted nearly every idea in the letter almost in the very words, & has also said speaking of the ballot, that it is within his knowledge that some to whom ballot was once a sine qua non, now think it would be “a step backward” the very phrase of the letter. He goes on to attack the ballot with arguments some of them so exactly the same as those in our unpublished pamphlet13 (even to the illustrations) that one would think he had seen that too if it had been physically possible. Though there are some bad arguments mixed yet on the whole this diminishes my regret that ours was not published. It is satisfactory that those letters we take so much trouble to write for some apparently small purpose, so often turn out more useful than we expected. Now about reviewing Comte:14 the reasons pro are evident. Those con are 1st I don’t like to have anything to do with the name or with any publication of H. Martineau. 2dly. The Westr though it will allow I dare say anything else, could not allow me to speak freely about Comte’s atheism & I do not see how it is possible to be just to him, when there is so much to attack, without giving him praise on that point of the subject. 3dly, as Chapman is the publisher he doubtless wishes, & expects, an article more laudatory on the whole, than I shd be willing to write. You dearest one will tell me what your perfect judgment & your feeling decide.—My cough varies from day to day but I have certainly rather more than when I left Hyères, still however the irritation does not feel as if it came from the chest. I do not know what to make of the great derangement of the circulation. My pulse which when I am well is not above 60, is now fully 90, & without any apparent cause, for I have now no signs of the Edition: current; Page: [127] low fever to which Gurney attributed it—my stomach & bowels are in good order, my appetite excellent (during the journey it was immense). I have sent for digitalis from Allen15 but it is impossible to go on taking that indefinitely & it has only a temporary effect when any at all. That & the obstinacy of the cough seem to imply something that keeps up irritation in the system, requiring to be removed but I don’t know whom to consult—I must see Coulson16 I suppose, if only because I have not yet paid him, but this is not I fancy in his line & he would probably refer me to Bird17 who he says has much practice in chest complaints. Tell me dearest what you think. Au reste I feel quite well & strong. Several times every day I have longed to be with her in those little rooms under that light sky instead of this dismal congregation of vapours—though the snow now is nearly gone—adieu my own darling for this time. Love to Lily.

No letter yet! The two letters dated on the Friday after I left are all I have yet had. Surely one must have miscarried, for she cannot have been eight days without either she or Lily writing even a line—& it does not seem half so unlikely that a letter from Hyères, as it did that one from Sidmouth should go astray. I have enquired everywhere at the I.H. It is of no use writing to Maberly2 till I can tell him on what day the letter was sent. But indeed I shall care comparatively little about a former letter when I shall have received any. Not to have heard for so long fills me with all sorts of anxious misgivings about her health—not to say that my own spirits are apt to flag without the support of her & hearing from her—a letter is a support in the same way though it cannot be in the same degree, as her presence. Did she not see the precious, the dearly beloved one, during those two or nearer three months, that it is impossible for me to be really out of spirits when I am seeing her, living with her? Next to that is the joy & support of a few words of her handwriting—I am writing this in our pleasant room—pleasant even in her Edition: current; Page: [128] absence—indeed her presence always seems to hover over it. My first care after returning was to have everything in it about which she had spoken, arranged in the manner she wished—my second look, & almost my first, on the evening of my arrival, was to see if the chair with its back to the fire was the one that should be—it was so, & has been ever since, & Haji says, always before. The two chairs which should be at the ends of the sideboard are there, with the things tied round them, unchanged. We have moved the table nearer the window, as she wished; the edge at which I sit at meals is opposite the middle of the fire. The little book was procured3—I wrote in it for the first time on Sunday & have written something each evening since—whether what I have written was much worth writing is another question. Ever since Sunday I have had meat with tea instead of dining out. It is pleasanter & subtracts so much from the being out after dark. I was almost forgetting to say a thing of much more importance, viz. that I today wrote out and signed that codicil4—the signature is attested by Napier & Bourdillon.5 Touching my health—the digitalis which I have taken for the last three days has I think done the cough some little good but has not reduced the pulse perceptibly. I have pretty well made up my mind to see Clark6 tomorrow or the day after, as the more I think about it the less I rely on any of the opinions given by Gurney on the subject, & besides when an ailment of this sort sticks to one, one should not be too long without consulting somebody. The most unpleasant thing as to present comfort, & a thing I never have been used to formerly, is the great portion of the middle of each night that I lie awake. I do not know the cause—it does not arise from any painful sensation, nor from coughing. The snow is mostly melted & the country looks green from our windows but there has been a north east wind these two days which though not so cold as one would expect is raw & unpleasant.

I.H. Thursday. Heaven be thanked, here is her Thursday’s letter. It has not really taken seven days coming as it did not go till Friday, & they tell me here that it arrived yesterday evening—we may call it 5½ days which is Edition: current; Page: [129] still very long. Her not writing sooner is but too well accounted for by her having been unwell & in bed but now when it has come what an angel of a letter! How loving & how lovely like everything that its perfect writer writes, says, does or feels; but it makes me feel very anxious about that cough—I so hope to hear that it gets better by not catching fresh cold. I am glad she is taking again to the quinine. If the cough does not improve will she not send for one of those physicians? At the hotel at Paris I found a book like the Post office Directory & took down the names of the medical men at Hyères: they are Allègre, Benet, Brunel, Chassinat, Honoraty, Verignon. It struck me that Benet (an odd name if French, meaning stupid ass)7 is perhaps Bennet & that that is the name of the English physician. By the way, how can you ask such a question darling about Gurney’s letter—as if there needed any asking for her to open & read anything addressed to me. Do darling & then inclose it or tell me the contents whichever is least trouble. I went to Clark this morning: he examined my chest &c thoroughly & reports favorably so far that he says there is no organic disease—at the same time he quite justifies my having gone to him by the very strong impression he has given me that he thinks me in some degree threatened. In fact when I said “then you find nothing the matter with my lungs beyond catarrh” he qualified his answer by saying “not at present”. He prescribed hemlock pills, & mustard poultices, which I am sure I do not know how Kate will make or I apply: & recommended my coming again in two or three weeks if not quite well by that time, that he may examine me again—meanwhile he will look back to the notes he made formerly—& he let out that he had some “suspicion” then. However I don’t think he thinks there is much to be afraid of, as he said nothing about not going out, or about respirators or anything of that sort—but contented himself with recommending warmer flannels than those I wear. How very much I enjoy those little details about herself. I fancy myself looking at that beautiful view with her—which I am so glad she enjoys—when darling is beginning tea, at half past six, I am always making it, & then beginning my supper. H[aji] always comes in before I have done. He behaves very well & his being in the room is agreeable rather than the contrary. When she wrote this precious letter on Thursday evening I was probably in the act of arriving at our home.

I think it is best to write Angleterre. A thousand loves & best wishes for this & all other years.

[P.S.] I meant to have inclosed a note8 this time but have not been able to get them in time.

On my arrival I found that Prescott2 had not given you a receipt for the £250. I shall have much pleasure in giving you one the first time I come your way.

Mr Pollard Urquhart,3 the member for Westmeath and author of a “Life of Francesco Sforza”4 & of some ingenious Essays on Political Economy,5 has written the inclosed paper6 on the Irish Tenant Right question. I think it quite the best thing I have seen on the subject; moderate, conclusive, & very judiciously put for English readers. Mr Urquhart is desirous of offering it to Fraser’s. I therefore send it for the consideration of the authorities.

The good which that precious letter did me, has not yet left me & will last a long while. I long however to hear more about her dear health. The coughing after talking is not an alarming symptom. It is just the same with me on Edition: current; Page: [131] the bad days of my cough & yet Clark could not find any organic disease—at least “at present”. By the way (as I am on the subject) though I see he has suspicions which he expects to be able to test by reexamination a few weeks hence, I do not at all regard them 1st, because he had similar suspicions, as it now appears, five years ago. 2nd, I can see that the side he a little suspects is the left side: now I have long felt perfectly sure that if my lungs are ever attacked it will be first & worst on the right side, as all my ailments without exception always are—& now all my sensations of uneasiness in the chest back shoulder & side are on the right side chiefly & almost exclusively. So do not be uneasy darling on account of what he said. At present my pulse is better but the appearance of improvement in the cough has ceased—apparently caused by the digitalis & going off whenever I cease taking that. Chronic catarrh is a very common old man’s disorder, but I am hardly old enough for it yet—it seems however that is what I have. I am working hard at getting up the arrear of India house business & have taken some of it home to work at tomorrow (Sunday). I hardly feel well or vigorous enough to set about any work of our own yet on Sundays & in the evenings—when I do the first thing shall be to finish the rewriting of the paper on Nature,2 which I began before we left. It is now (yesterday & today) beautiful weather here, that is for England—mild and clear—but what a difference between this clearness & that, which my darling is now looking on & which do I not wish I was looking on along with her. How I rejoice every day in knowing exactly her whereabout—all the objects about her both indoors & out. I have seen & heard from or of nobody & have no news to tell. I hope the Spectator arrived safe. This morning Kate announced that she had no kitchen candles or soap; the last owing to her having washed things for Haji. I said you expected her stores of all sorts would last till March. I said I would write to you about it & in the meantime to order 1 lb of each from Dalton.3 She also said that there were only potatoes for two or three days. The last had were a bushel on the 3rd of November; have they not gone very fast, considering Haji’s three weeks absence & that when he was here (until the last week) they were only wanted one day in the week? What does the tax gatherer mean by charging us 12/for “armorial bearings”? Can he mean the crest on your dear little seal? Webster’s bill is “Examining correcting & cleaning foreign marble clock 15/, new winder 2/6. Cleaning & repairing carriage clock (which he spoiled) 12/6d.” Roberts sends a bill of £6/5 for things supplied Feb. 26. Ap. 23 & Sept. 14. I think he was paid the two first & shall look into it. Chapman (Cooper) sends a bill for 1s3d for “hoop to washing tub.” Todman a bill Edition: current; Page: [132] for 17/ which it will be very troublesome to pay. I think we settled that Prescott’s4 clerks were not to have the Xmas money this year? I find an unexpected difficulty in getting small notes of the Bank of France. The man I usually employ, Massey,4 in Leadenhall St. says he has not been able to get any, & I have tried two other places with no better success—I could get a note for 500 fr. but that seems too much to risk without first putting forth a feeler—but if I cannot get soon what I want, I must send that. I have been nowhere west of Bucklersbury5 where I went to get tea from Mansell’s.6 Thornton during our absence has published a volume of poems7 in which he has taken the liberty of addressing one to me by name8—it is an imitation of an epistle of Horace. He apologized for doing it without leave on account of my absence—a very insufficient apology—in the thing itself there is little about me, & that little neither good nor harm. Though the verses in the volume are better than common, he has not raised my opinion of his good sense by publishing them. I send this letter unpaid dear as being one that I am sure is not overweight, that you may see if they do not charge 16 sous, instead of the 10 pence which must be paid to frank it here. There seems no use in paying an extra twopence on every letter for the sake of paying here instead of there. Does there? & now adieu my own precious love. I wait for the next letter as the greatest & chief pleasure I can have during this absence. A thousand thousand loves.

I received this morning my precious one’s letter written on the 11th & 12th—how delightfully quick it has come this time. I hope this quickness will be the general rule. To speak first of the most important thing that exists, to me, or ever can exist, your health—I do not think there is anything alarming in those sudden & violent coughs such as this seems to have been—it is not in that way that organic disease gets on. Such coughs come & go even where there is already pulmonary disease, & are not only got rid of, but do not leave Edition: current; Page: [133] what was already wrong, worse than they found it. As an instance, Sinnett,2 soon after he was pronounced consumptive by Clark, had a most violent, almost terrible cough, & I happening to see him at the time, thought he must be in a very bad way—but the next thing I heard about him was that it was quite gone, & I never heard that he was at all worse after it. On the whole it is a considerable comfort that you should have had so bad a cough without any hemorrhage—but that trial having been now made, I am very happy that it seemed to be going away & I hope in going it will carry off with it the cough you had before, but if it does not, you are probably only in the same case with me, whose cough, now three months old, nothing seems to touch—Clark’s hemlock pills & mustard poultices appear to have no more effect than Gurney’s remedies. I never knew that a mere cough, not consumptive, could be as obstinate as this is, but I believe those influenza coughs last longer than any others. About Mrs Grote’s letter,3 my darling is I dare say right. It did not escape me that there was that amende, & I should have felt much more indignant if there had not. But what was to my feelings like impudent, though impudent is not exactly the right word, was, that after the things she has said & done respecting us,4 she should imagine that a tardy sort of recognition of you, & flattery to me, would serve to establish some sort of relation between us & her. It strikes me as déplacé to answer the letter, especially so long after it was written—but her having made this amende might make the difference of my asking how she is, at least when he mentions her. That is about as much, I think, as her good intentions deserve.—I will, dear, say to Grote what she wishes & the best opportunity will be the first time he writes a note to me in that form. I do not, & have not for years, addressed him as Mr—& it is very dull of him not to have taken the hint. I am getting on with India house work but the arrear will take me a long time—I worked at it at home all yesterday (Sunday) & got through a good deal. Sunday, alas, is not so different from other days as when she is here—though more so than when I am quite with her. I am reading in the evenings, as I said I would do, Sismondi’s Italian Republics5 which I read last in 1838, before going to Italy. Having seen so many of the places since makes it very interesting.

I.H. 17th. This morning I watched the loveliest dawn & sunrise & felt that I was looking directly to where she is & that that sun came straight Edition: current; Page: [134] from her. And now here is the Friday’s letter which comes from her in a still more literal sense. I am so happy that the cough is better & that she is in better spirits. How kindly she writes about the keys, never mind darling. I have bought one set of flannels since. I am glad she likes the note to Sykes. As for Chapman’s request,6 the pro was the great desire I feel to atone for the overpraise I have given Comte7 & to let it be generally known to those who know me what I think on the unfavourable side about him. The reason that the objection which you feel so strongly & which my next letter afterwards will have shewn that I felt too, did not completely decide the matter with me, was that Chapman did not want a review of this particular book, but of Comte, & I could have got rid of H.M.’s part8 in a sentence, perhaps without even naming her—I shd certainly have put Comte’s own book at the head along with hers & made all the references to it. But malgré cela I disliked the connexion & now I dislike it still more, & shall at once write to C. to refuse—putting the delay of an answer upon my long absence so that he may not think I hesitated. It is lucky he has not called. A propos he has not sent the January number of the Westr. I will lend the £10 to Holyoake9 as she says darling. I did not propose the Edinburgh to Urquhart10 because he wanted to publish in time for the beginning of the session & could not wait till April—so nothing but a magazine would do. Besides the Ed. would not have taken it. I have an answer from him, thanking me & accepting my offer to send it to Parker which I have done. I have no answer from Marshall11—I have not been able to get a 100 f. note of the B. of F. but I have at last got the one which I inclose (200 f.). If it goes safe I will send a larger one next. Now that the snow is melted I must have the gardener to clear up the place—& I shall be able to pay the bills & taxes. I paid Kate’s wages. She is exactly all you said—very pleasant to speak to & be served by—but her excuses are like a person with no sense or head at all & she requires much looking after. She says Parsons’ bill is wrong because it charges, during all Haji’s absence about twice the quantity of meat she professes to have had, & she has twice taken the bill to make him alter it, but of course she has had the meat, & last Sunday the fact that a large piece of the roast beef had been cut off was as palpable as in the worst case I remember with the former cook. I shewed it to her of course, not charging her with anything but that she might know I had noticed it.

Another dear letter came today—& did me good not only as they always do, by the love & sweetness & by the sight of the precious handwriting (she asked me in one of her letters if I could read the pencil! bless her!) but also by the pleasant picture of bright sunshine & pure air with June temperature—which is made so much more pleasant by having seen & knowing that beautiful view & all that she looked on when she stood on the balcony that evening. It is delightful to think of her with such weather—here the weather is not now cold nor very disagreeable, there is only the total absence of agreeableness, characteristic of English winter. She says nothing of her health this time—I hope the better news of the last letter continues. As for my own health she will have seen in my subsequent letters nearly all there is to tell. I am so glad she wished me to see Clark. I should not like to go to any one who had not known my constitution before, therefore certainly not to Gurney’s doctor. How excessively cool of G.2 to make that very modest request to Lily! but you judged him right from the first—you always said he was presuming to the verge of impertinence. It is quite pleasant however to read about ferns growing in immense abundance. How I wish we could see them together. The Comte question is decided—Chapman shall have a most positive negative.3 I sent the £10 to Holyoake4 who has written back a letter of thanks. I am so glad that my answer to Westbourne5 was right. A propos the insolence which I think you mean was in Clara’s letter6—I do not think Harriet was insolent or at least intended to be so—I think her words have always been much less bad than Clara’s though her conduct has been much the same—The mistake I made about the bread was very stupid—I found it out soon after but forgot to say so to her (my dearest one) & if I had she would have got it too late to save her the trouble of writing about it. Perhaps too the potatoes have lasted as long as could be expected. Kate did make Parsons strike out 1¼ lb of beef from his bill so there was I suppose some truth in what she said.7 She now declares that there are only Edition: current; Page: [136] coals to last till Saturday. The two tons which Haji ordered were had on the 12th November, so they have lasted just nine weeks. I find that the same quantity had on the 23d May lasted till the 15th August being twelve weeks: we had not left off fires in the sitting rooms in May, but perhaps the difference is as little as we could expect. When we had all the fires in full play two tons only lasted a month. I am sorry to say darling I have paid most of the bills to the end of the year but I will get Haji to pay the current ones in future—perhaps once a month will be sufficient? I took what she said in her last letter about letting bills & taxes wait till I had less to do, as implying they might be paid when I had time so I have paid those which lay convenient—even now I think I must myself pay those at Lee, viz. Upton & Stevens.8 Marshall has just sent his bill “repairing tea urn cover 9d. new heater 2/. repairing dish cover 6d. garden fork 3/6. Roberts I see had not been paid at all in the course of the year. Did the 200 fr. note inclosed in my last arrive safe? When I hear that it did I will send another—probably a larger. I inclose a note from M. Laing,9 received today—none of the news seems to have reached her. You do not say (but I forget in what letter I mentioned it) whether to send the Adelaide letter.10 Is it not wonderful, the stand which the Turks are making?11 this last four days battle, they being the assailants, & completely victorious, seems to me one of the most remarkable feats of arms in recent history—they must be not only most determinedly brave but (what nobody expected) excellently led. Selim Pasha12 one of those who commanded is I believe a Pole—what a pity Bem13 did not live to see & take part in it. In the last few days the papers have been full of the Prince Albert political scandal,14 mostly complaining of the public gullibility, but all saying that these reports were very widely spread over the country & largely believed—the worth of popularity! Adieu darling for tonight, for I must make & apply my mustard poultice—you should see me doing it every Edition: current; Page: [137] evening—not that it or the hemlock pills seem to do any good, for the cough if better at all is so little so as to leave the matter doubtful & I am not quite so well otherwise as I was—feverish I suppose for my face is always flushed & burning & my hands generally. I shall see Clark soon again therefore. & now my precious more than life, good night.

I.H. Jan. 20. I am better, darling, than yesterday—I was less feverish in the night, & my stomach which was somewhat disordered yesterday is less so today owing to attention to diet. I sleep considerably better than I did. There is however evidently a good deal wrong about my state, but whether it is something great or something comparatively small we cannot at present know. This is, for London, a really bright sunny day with a mild south wind, & even here such a day is inspiriting. I write every evening in the little book.15 I have been reading the Essay on Nature16 as I rewrote the first part of it before we left & I think it very much improved & altogether very passable. I think I could soon finish it equally well. Did I not darling some time before leaving, give you the will? The last one I mean, the one prepared by Gregson.17 I think I did & I certainly cannot find it, but only all the old wills—& now again a thousand loves & blessings.

How very happy my beloved one your letter makes me by saying that the cough is so much better. I longed so for that news & now it has come I feel quite lighthearted. I have made a copy of Bird’s prescription & inclose it but I am rather afraid the pharmaciens will not know anything about Syrup of Iron & Iodide of Quinine. I will when I see Coulson which I have not done yet, but which I will do immediately, ask him to make an equivalent prescription which they will understand. Meanwhile luckily you have some—it is to be taken a teaspoonful thrice a day & Bird prefers that it should be at or immediately after meals. I too have thought very often lately about the life2 & am most anxious that we should complete it the soonest possible. What there is of it is in a perfectly publishable state—as far as writing goes it could be printed tomorrow—& it contains a full writing out as far as anything can write out, what you are, as far as I am competent to describe you, Edition: current; Page: [138] & what I owe to you—but, besides that until revised by you it is little better than unwritten, it contains nothing about our private circumstances, further than shewing that there was intimate friendship for many years, & you only can decide what more it is necessary or desirable to say in order to stop the mouths of enemies hereafter. The fact is there is about as much written as I can write without your help & we must go through this together & add the rest to it at the very first opportunity—I have not forgotten what she said about bringing it with me to Paris.—Now dear about myself, I went again to Clark on Saturday being thereunto determined by feeling myself worse in several ways & especially by having had the aguish chill very much the evening before & a great deal of fever in the night after it. Clark examined my chest &c carefully again & said there is some congestion of the lungs, on the right side, but that he does not believe there is any commencement of organic disease & from the way in which he said it I feel much more sure than I did before both that he did not keep back anything, & also that he does not think the cough a really serious matter. He found some congestion of the liver which he thought was probably the cause of the fever & other symptoms, & for this he prescribed acids (nitric & muriatic) & mustard poultices in the region of the liver. Since that the fever I have had for nearly a fortnight has very much gone off & I feel better altogether—with regard to the cough he advised me to do nothing, but leave off the hemlock pills to see what cough there would be if no sedative were taken. Accordingly it is somewhat worse, especially at night—but since there seems to be nothing dangerous about it we must have patience & it will I suppose go off some time. Thanks darling for the directions about the mustard, but I have till now applied it without any intervening muslin, direct to the skin (by advice of one of the partners at Allen’s)3 & as it is, by Clark’s directions, mixed with an equal quantity of linseed meal, it is not too strong. In fact I cannot get it strong enough though I keep it on much longer than the half hour Clark recommended. My having tea at half past six is by choice—I manage so as to have done my supper & have the tea ready to pour out when Haji comes in—but the last four days I have dined in town at a very good & cheap place which Haji told me of, the place where the French restaurant formerly was, in Gracechurch St. My own angel Haji is not to blame about the place at table. That where I sit is now directly opposite the very middle of the fire, & is I think the warmest—in any case I prefer it to the other. H. does not even always sit there, but sometimes on the contrary side of the table. He behaves very well & is even empressé to do things for me as well as give things up to me—he is altogether much more amiable than I ever knew him, which is probably to be partly ascribed to his being, as he evidently is, in very much better health. He does not mope nor sit with Edition: current; Page: [139] his head on his hand (except a very little occasionally) can, & does, read nearly all the evening, & is not now at all like an invalid. I waited for one more letter before writing to Chapman but as that contained no suggestion about the reply I wrote merely that for various reasons it was impossible for me to do it4 & that I hoped the delay of answering had not caused him inconvenience. The first time he calls however I will say to him what you now suggest. Yesterday was the loveliest day possible in an English winter—I went out for a little in the mild & warm sun & enjoyed the beautiful view towards Shooter’s Hill—what & whom I thought of you do not need that I shd tell. I worked again all day & part of the evening at India house work. I do not however think I shall need to do this again, as I have already made a very perceptible impression on the arrears. Today though it began gloomy has turned out at last equally fine. The stocks & wallflowers in Lily’s garden are beginning to flower, & I hope the bitterness of winter is past. It seems the 26th of Decr was the coldest day; the thermr in London at zero of Fahrenheit, at Nottingham 4 degrees lower, or 36 below freezing!

I got her letter yesterday & though she says it is not a letter I was delighted to have it, as well as with the promise of another in a day or two. To take the subjects in their order: the word “threatened” was not used by Clark but was my own expression of the impression he gave me as to his opinion, by his guarded phrase ‘at present’ & other signs. You will have seen since the more decidedly favorable opinion he afterwards gave—but I agree in all she says about it—no doubt we both are always threatened with consumption when we are long out of health & we must endeavour not to be so. I have continued better as to general health, & the cough after being for two days as I said in my last, rather worse, became & has been since considerably better, in fact more like a gradual going off than I have yet thought it—the diminution being both in cough & expectoration & what I think an improvement in the quality of both. This is the more encouraging as I am doing absolutely nothing against the cough. With regard to Thornton I do not think what you say too severe—he has suddenly plumped down to the place of a quite common person in my estimation, when I thought he was a good deal better. Edition: current; Page: [140] There are in the book2 itself many proofs of excessive, even ridiculous vanity, not much the better for being, as in his case it is, disappointed vanity. He is far from the first instance I have known of inordinate vanity under very modest externals. His misjudgment of me is so far less than you supposed, as he has not put in any flattery proprement dit, but the fact itself is a piece of flattery which he must have thought would be agreeable or he would not have taken so impertinent a liberty. There are so few people of whom one can think even as well as I did of him, that I feel this a loss, & am like you angry with him for it.—I will of course resist the charge for armorial bearings3 but I really do not know whom to call on, for even the name of the Collector is not given & the only one I can hear of lives at Charlton. I have paid Webster4—he says he will find & send back the packing case. About the clock he offered to send his man again, which I of course declined. Roberts cannot have been paid for I find no entry this year of his name in the monthly account, so I shall pay him the first opportunity. I will try to find out why they charge four sous for the newspaper. At the post office in Leadenhall St, I was told it would go free. Shall I send the Examiner instead? I had not burned her notes, dear things as they were, but I have since burnt them all except the two last (which I shall burn presently) & a bit of one former one containing what is to be said to Grote, which I wish to have to refer to now & then until it has been said. I have not yet written to James,5 but will do so. I have not seen my mother, but have this morning received from her the inclosed note to which I have answered as inclosed. You will see I have adopted your idea of what is the matter with Mrs King6 but I rather suspect the stomach—some chronic inflammation of its coats. I have seen Coulson, & paid him (£10) as I do not expect to have to consult him again. He thought that day of great pain in the leg very singular but gave no other opinion on it. I send a prescription which he wrote for me, equivalent as he said to that of Bird—it is impossible that Bird’s could be made up at Hyères, as C. says the syrup in question is peculiar to one particular chemist (Davenport in G. Russell St) but Coulson’s seems very clear & the handwriting very distinct & no doubt they can manage it. If not however, he says it could be (or rather the equivalent of Bird’s could be) sent by post, in the form of a powder. About the bills—there seems not much amiss in Kate’s goings on. She takes a second half quartern on Tuesday as well as Saty & that suffices. The last week I have caused the extra Saty loaf, for Sunday, to be brown, as I find the underbaked bread (so much the opposite of Continental) disagrees with me at present & obliges me to eat it (unless with meat) chiefly in the Edition: current; Page: [141] form of toast. As to meat we had on Sunday a leg of mutton said in the bill to be 7 lbs 6 oz, which has served me cold the three days following & will serve me hashed today, H[aji] also having it at breakfast. That is about a pound a day allowing for bone, or probably a little less. I had quite a country walk towards Upton’s7 which appears to be about two miles off on the other side of the Eltham road, however he overtook me in his cart before I got there; but as it is impossible for either me or Haji to go all that way to pay the bills weekly or even monthly, I shall henceforth pay them to the man when he comes in the morning. Milk is about the only thing not dearer: bread has long been 5½d the half quartern. The weather here is still very mild & tolerably bright. I enjoy excessively the thought of the brighter, the really bright sky & pure air & June temperature she has. Think of me darling as always enjoying it with you, which I do in the most literal sense—those few bright days with you there have made that place feel completely my home & will till she returns.

I am now writing on the fourth Sunday that I have spent here—it is positively only three weeks last Thursday evening since I arrived—though more than a calendar month since I left home, for home to me is those two rooms. If I were setting out now to go there I should feel it in the full meaning of the term going home. It is not that the time here is unpleasant, though, contrary to custom, a time passed entirely in routine every day similar, has seemed very long: or rather each day has seemed extremely short, but the whole time wonderfully long. However the first month in such cases is always the longest, the others pass quickly enough: I have been feeling much (I must have been incapable of feeling anything if I had not) about the shortness & uncertainty of life & the wrongness of having so much of the best of what we have to say, so long unwritten & in the power of chance—& I am determined to make a better use of what time we have. Two years, well employed, would enable us I think to get the most of it into a state fit for printing—if not in the best form for popular effect, yet in the state of concentrated thought—a sort of mental pemican, which thinkers, when there are any after us, may nourish Edition: current; Page: [142] themselves with & then dilute for other people. The Logic & Pol. Ec. may perhaps keep their buoyancy long enough to hold these other things above water till there are people capable of taking up the thread of thought & continuing it. I fancy I see one large or two small posthumous volumes of Essays, with the Life2 at their head, & my heart is set on having these in a state fit for publication quelconque, if we live so long, by Christmas 1855; though not then to be published if we are still alive to improve & enlarge them. The first thing to be done & which I can do immediately towards it is to finish the paper on Nature,3 & this I mean to set about today, after finishing this letter—being the first Sunday that I have not thought it best to employ in I.H. work. That paper, I mean the part of it rewritten, seems to me on reading it to contain a great deal which we want said, said quite well enough for the volume though not so well as we shall make it when we have time. I hope to be able in two or three weeks to finish it equally well & then to begin something else—but all the other subjects in our list will be much more difficult for me even to begin upon without you to prompt me. All this however is entirely dependent on your health continuing to go on well; for these are not things that can be done in a state of real anxiety. In bodily ill health they might be. I have nothing particular to tell about my health—The cough has been so variable that I can hardly say how it is, or whether the improvement I mentioned in my last has been any of it permanent or not. However there certainly is not a great deal of cough. I live the most regular of lives, &, fortunately, hardly anybody comes to interrupt me, so that I get through a great deal of work quietly at the I.H. & generally rather overstay the hours in order to do more. Ellice has been away for a fortnight on account of gout. Parker4 called yesterday with the accounts of last year. The Logic has sold 260 copies in 1853—in 1852 it only sold 206. This steady sale must proceed I think from a regular annual demand from colleges & other places of education. What is strange is that the Pol. Ec. Essays sell from 20 to 50 copies each year & bring in three or four pounds annually. This is encouraging, since if that sells, I should think anything we put our name to would sell. P. brought a cheque for £102..2..5 which with the £250, & £25 which Lewis has sent for the Grote,5 is pretty well to have come in one year from writings of which money was not at all the object. I have never yet told you of the books which had been sent during our absence: the chief were, a large octavo volume in black imitation of thick old binding, with the arms of the State of S. Carolina stamped on it, consisting of a treatise on Government & on the Constitution of the U. States by Calhoun,6 with a printed Edition: current; Page: [143] paper bound into it saying that it was presented by the Legislature of S. Carolina under whose direction it had been published & who had passed a resolution authorizing the Library Committees to present it “to such individuals distinguished for science learning & public service, & to such libraries as they may select.” This signed by the Chairmen of the two Comees, of Senate & of H. of Representatives. I give you this at so much length that you may be able to judge, whether a letter ought to be written in acknowledgment.7 There is next a treatise on banking by Courcelle Seneuil,8 who is advertised as one of the translators of thePol. Econ.9 that is, I suppose, who took it in hand because Dussard10 failed to get through it. He was one of the best writers in La République11 & has written a rather nice letter with the book. He must be written to some time—I should suppose from the advertisement that the translation is published—but if so I suppose Guillaumin12 would have sent it.—Helps13 has also sent the thing which you will see mentioned in today’s Spectator,14 & there are one or two smaller things not worth mentioning. Parliament meets on Tuesday when we shall perhaps know a little more about the intentions of the Government both as to things foreign & domestic. The best thing stirring at present (save the unexpected eagerness of public opinion to act vigorously against Russia)15 is, that there is an evident movement for secularizing education. The Times for weeks past has been writing with considerable energy on that side of the question,16 & yesterday’s papers contained a great meeting at Edinburgh,17Edition: current; Page: [144] of the Free Church leaders as well as Liberals, for abolishing all religious tests for schoolmasters in the Scotch parish schools & taking them entirely out of the control of the clergy. These are signs—

Jan. 30

And now here is her darling letter of the 26th which has been longer than usual in coming. Thank heaven it was not owing to her being ill. All she says about my health is most sweet & loving, but indeed dearest you misunderstand the cough, as I have before thought you did. Nothing could give, to my sensations, a falser idea to the medical men than to tell them I had had a cough for ten years. I had, as three quarters of all men have, an occasional need to clear my throat, without the slightest irritation or titillation or any sensation the least resembling that of cough, & my present state is totally & generically different from that habitual one. My real coughs which have been occasional but very slight, & yet very long in going off entirely, have always begun as this did with catching cold as indicated by sore throat at waking in the morning. As you wish dearest, I am not now taking medicine as the acids which C[lark] prescribed soon disagreed with my stomach, so I left them off—I shall go to him again in a few days, as though I am much less feverish I have still a bad tongue at getting up & I wish to know what he thinks of the difference in the expectoration—besides as long as the cough persists, it is right to have a medical opinion pretty often. But I am not in the least out of spirits & am quite disposed to “put will into resistance” if she will only tell me what will can do. It is a pleasant coincidence that I should receive her nice say about the “Nature” just after I have resumed it. I shall put those three beautiful sentences about “disorder” verbatim into the essay.18 I wrote a large piece yesterday at intervals (reading a bit of Sismondi19 whenever I was tired) & am well pleased with it. I don’t think we should make these essays very long, though the subjects are inexhaustible. We want a compact argument first, & if we live to expand it & add a larger dissertation, tant mieux: there is need of both. How very delightful it is to read her account of that drive to the seaside. How I should have liked to be there—& how I enjoy her having such nice summer weather & being able to enjoy it. With regard to the will, darling, I feel all but certain of having given it to you, & if I did not, as I do, remember it, I could not doubt it, since it was Edition: current; Page: [145] locked up in my bedroom drawer for long before & is not there now. My recollection is of having given it to you in your bedroom. As for the codicil20 it is not at all needful that it should be on the same paper. To reexecute the will (useless says Gregson) will be useless, since I can not remember Gregson’s exact words, & for everything else the will immediately preceding (which I have safe) will serve. & now my beloved with a thousand loves & blessings from my deepest heart farewell.

I am glad that my book should have afforded you any of the pleasure or benefit which you do me the honor to tell me you have derived from it.

I have received many letters which, like yours, ask me to explain or defend particular passages of the Logic. I am not sorry to receive them as they are a sign that the book has been read in the manner which all thinkers must desire for their writings—that it has stirred up thought in the mind of the reader. But my occupations compel me to beg my correspondents to be satisfied with a more summary explanation of the opinions they dissent from, than I can generally venture to hope will remove their difficulties.

It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between the case of the rust & that of the motion of a projectile.2 In the case of the rust the original cause of its existence, were it 1000 years ago, may be said to be the proximate cause, since, as there has been no intermediate change of any sort, there is no cause more proximate than it. You may say, there is the existence of the rust itself during the intermediate time. I answer, the rust all through the 1000 years is one & the same fact, therefore we do not say that it causes itself: but the motion in successive instants (though, as you say, it may be the same qua motion) is, taken in its ensemble, a different fact, since it is essentially constituted by a different phenomenon, viz. the body in one place instead of the same body in another place. The argument is still stronger when the motion is not even the same qua motion—when besides the difference in the fact itself, there has also intervened the action Edition: current; Page: [146] of a new cause, a deflecting force or a resisting medium. The concurrence of forces at each successive instant is then a cause evidently more proximate to the effect of the next instant than the original impulse, which, therefore, can only be called the remote cause.

Our difference is more one of expression than of fact. It seems to me that when there is a change of any sort at that precise point we ought to say that a fresh causation commences. It is only while things remain exactly as the original cause left them, that the original can be also termed the proximate cause of their state.

I have just received your Sunday’s letter my own darling love. What you say of your weakness & want of appetite makes me very uneasy—the first however would alarm me more if it were not accompanied with the second, for want of appetite is not I believe an ordinary effect of consumption—it rather seems to indicate something else amiss, which therefore may be the cause also of the weakness. I wish you had Gurney or somebody as good to ask about it, for if it is as I hope, it is very likely that some simple remedy would cure it as Clark’s did (or I suppose did) my liver ailment which disturbed the general system much more than the cough. Respecting living on the Continent we have always said that that question must be decided this coming summer—As far as climate is concerned Blackheath in summer is as good as any place & better than any which is very hot—but of course only with a minimization of housekeeping, which must be reduced as nearly as possible to what it was at Nice. Whether we hold on to the I.H.2 I think should depend on where you are able to live during the winter, for example if the I[sle] of W[ight] would be suitable, I could come so often that it would not amount to a separation. These things however I hope we shall talk about many times fully before it is necessary to decide them. Meanwhile if the strength & appetite do not return with the quinine, will you not see Alègre? Very probably he could at once correct the cause of those symptoms—A Edition: current; Page: [147] minor reason for seeing him would be that as they say he has lived some years in England, he would understand prescriptions & could make the chemists make them up right. If they cannot be trusted with Coulson’s prescription shall I adopt his suggestion & send the iodine &c in powder inclosed in a letter?—As for myself I am in statu quo, putting off from day to day another visit to Clark—the cough sometimes seeming to get worse, then better again—today it is better after being considerably worse for two days before. I have written at the Nature3 every evening since Sunday & am getting on pretty well with it. I shall not know what to attempt when that is done. I do not expect there will be a good opportunity or a necessity to write about the ballot—that opinion of Montesquieu & of Cicero4 has often been quoted in opposition to it before. I will send the Examiner hereafter instead of the Spectator. You ought to see a newspaper now that Parliament has met. The Queen’s speech5 has rather disappointed people by its mild tone on the Russian question but I am myself convinced by all that was said in the debates in both houses that the Govt are expecting war & mean to carry it on vigorously by sea at all events. In other respects it is the best programme there has been for years: Parliamentary reform6 which I thought would be shelved on account of the war—more law reform,7 including the taking away will & marriage causes from the ecclesiastical courts—reform of the Universities by Act of Parlt8—reform of the law of settlement,9 now a great evil—what most surprises me, a plan to be brought forward for regulating the admission to public offices,10 which is fully understood to be the extension to all of them of the competition plan adopted last year for the civil service in India.11 It was plain enough that when once introduced anywhere it would spread, but I little thought the very next session would see Edition: current; Page: [148] it adopted in the Govt offices. The mere attempt to make patronage go by merit & not by favour seems to me to be a revolution in English society & likely to produce greater effects than any reforms in the laws which we can expect for a long time. This Govt also, determined to get through work & be thought men of business, have already named early days for bringing in nearly all their bills, even Parl. reform in less than a fortnight. I am really curious to see what it will be like.—I have paid most of the bills, including Roberts, & got their receipts. Winter it has only quite lately occurred to me that I could have paid when I went to Clark, quite close by.12 I shall do so the next time. Kate has been moderate with her candles & soap, for a pound of each was had in the middle of last month & she has not yet asked for any more. I sent a 500 fr. note in my last, dated the 30th. You will surely want more dearest. It is best to have a margin. By the bye my travelling expenses were much within the margin, for when I left Boulogne I had after giving 17 fr. for an umbrella, 86 fr. left out of 300 and odd. I inclose a letter from Sykes. With the deepest and entirest love

I cannot think or care about anything my own beloved one except your precious health. It is such a comfort to me that you felt better the day you sent your letter. Though that does not prove much, still the better of one day is something to set against the worse of another. About our plans, dearest, they should all be made on the supposition of living. We should do what will be best on the supposition that we live. At all events it is of little use considering what would be desirable in the hypothesis of my outliving you, for if I wished it ever so much—which I never could do for any other reason than because you wish it—I do not see how it would be possible for me to escape being made consumptive by real long continued fear of the worst, even before the worst has time to happen. But do not let this alarm you about me my darling, for I am neither feeling worse physically nor more anxious than I have felt ever since that first attack at Nice. I think we have a good Edition: current; Page: [149] chance of living a few years at least & that it is worth while to make plans on that probability. I did not understand what you meant dearest in your last by saying that in that case you are wanted here—I am sure you need not in the smallest degree consider anyone who would or could want you here—Lily and I as you know only want to be with you wherever you are.—I have little to tell of any kind. I have not been to Clark yet which you may know is a sign that I do not think myself worse. By working an hour or two every evening at the Nature2 I have very nearly finished it: tonight or tomorrow will I believe do everything to it that I am at present capable of doing. There is a pleasure in seeing any fresh thing finished at least so far as to be presentable. I shall then look again through the Life.3 I have got through at least three fourths of the I.H. arrears, as fortunately the two mails which have come in since my return have brought little or nothing—I never remember such small mails. That would have been the time to be away! I have read through another new volume of Comte;4 there is no fresh bad in it. It is quite curious the completeness and compactness of his theory of everything—& the perfectness, without flaw, of his self-satisfaction. A number of the N. American review has been sent with an article headed “J. S. Mill on Causation”5 forming the rejoinder of Bowen6 (the editor) to the reply to him in the third ed.7 of the Logic. It is remarkably feeble & poor & a couple of lines in another edition8 would dispose of it—but it is good to see the subject stirred up & that book taking its place as the standard philosophical representative in English (unhappily now the only one) of the anti-innate principle & anti-natural-theology doctrines. While I write, in comes a note from one of the Kingsley set9 who has written before, as you probably remember. I send his affected note which asks leave to reprint the chapter on the Future of the Labouring Classes.10 Of course I must tell him that he must ask leave of Parker, but I should perhaps tell him also, & certainly should be prepared to tell Parker, whether I have any objection myself.11 I should think I have not: what does my angel think? I did not expect the Xtian Socialists Edition: current; Page: [150] would wish to circulate the chapter as it is in the 3d edit. since it stands up for Competition against their one-eyed attacks & denunciations of it. You will I am afraid have the Spectator once more, as I was too late, for this week, in countermanding it, at least Wray12 said so, though I cannot conceive how, even for a Saturday paper as it professes to be, Friday morning can be too late. But it did not seem worth making him send an express to town as he said he must do. Public events seem to be going as we wish. Clarendon’s13 last letter to Russia is unexpectedly firm & high handed14—the ambassadors you see are going away;15 the Post today says,16 professedly from authority, that Nicholas17 will now be called on to evacuate the principalities18 & that on his refusal England & France will declare war.19 The Times says nothing of this but (for the first time) says today20 that Prussia & Austria21 have decided to stand by the other two even to the length of fighting. This seems too good news to be all of it true: but for some time England has been in every quarter making preparations for war in good earnest & the despatch is now printed22 in which the fleets in the Black Sea23 were ordered to require & if needful compel all Russian ships of war to retire to Sebastopol & remain there. Nicholas I think is in a scrape, & will hardly get out of it without serious loss of at least prestige, which is the main source of his power.—Sharpers24 has sent a bill of £6.8 or rather a memorandum “To Bill delivered”. Was any bill delivered? As you said dearest it shall wait.

Your Thursday’s letter, my perfect one, did not arrive till this morning (Tuesday). I trembled in opening it for fear lest it should say you were less well, & you may conceive the joy it gave me to read that for so many days you had been better than at any time since we arrived—that delightful news makes everything seem bright & cheerful. I had asked myself that question about the books. It would be a great privation, in living abroad, to be without books of our own, dependent entirely on public libraries which, except at Paris, are almost always limited to particular classes of books, but as we should doubtless end by fixing ourselves in some place I thought we should leave our books somewhere for a year or two & send for them afterwards. Our decision may be affected by the question of health in another way which we have not yet considered, depending on my health, for if that should get worse I should be able to leave the I.H. with two thirds of my salary,2 which would make a very great difference in the aspect of matters. I went to Clark yesterday; he found the congestion in one part of the right lung not worse, but not better either, & recommended a blister or rather a substitute in the form of a blistering fluid, applied just over that place; which I have done but with no good effect apparent as yet, for the cough & irritation in the night & today are greater than they have been lately. He found the liver still congested, which he says tends to keep up the pulmonary congestion, & he gave me an alterative aperient, the mercurial chalk & rhubarb, but to be taken only when required. When I left him I paid Mrs Winter’s3 bill, but not to herself, for she has left the business & there is a plate on the door Mrs Cresswell successor to Mrs Winter. The young woman there gave me however as she said she could do, a receipt in behalf of Mrs Winter. I will tell my mother the first time I have occasion to write, all you mention. She is very familiar with gallstones as one of her sisters has been several times at death’s door with them. That perhaps confirms your conjecture as I believe all diseases are apt to go in families since constitutions & temperaments do so. About the pensions,4 it occurred to me just after I had sent the note to Edition: current; Page: [152] my mother & written about it to you, that the meaning of the difference of amount must be that since last summer the two smaller pensions are subject to income tax, which of course has been deducted at the I.H. though when the warrants merely passed through my hands I did not notice it. So I wrote a single sentence to my mother explaining it, since which I have heard nothing more from her. I finished the “Nature”5 on Sunday as I expected. I am quite puzzled what to attempt next—I will just copy the list of subjects we made out in the confused order in which we put them down. Differences of character (nation, race, age, sex, temperament). Love. Education of tastes. Religion de l’Avenir. Plato. Slander. Foundation of morals. Utility of religion. Socialism. Liberty. Doctrine that causation is will. To these I have now added from your letter: Family, & Conventional. It will be a tolerable two years work to finish all that? Perhaps the first of them is the one I could do most to by myself, at least of those equally important.6 I do not the least remember what you say I said darling one of those rather pleasant days, but I have no doubt it was not half of what I thought. I shall make a point of saying something emphatic to Haji to remind him of what he must very well know I think or rather know. It is so very pleasant to read of that splendid weather, knowing that you are really having it. Here we had for two or three days a return of frost & one day of dense fog, but it has gone away again & is now quite mild, & yesterday was very fine & sunny but most days are dull & cloudy though it seldom rains. The dear place looks very well and I have had the gardener to make it tidy, but I shall not have him any more till you tell me. I am glad you will have had the Examiner yesterday instead of the Spectator; the characteristic of which seems to me to be tame commonplace, which in England always means vulgar. The Examiner is certainly better, though ridiculously weak sometimes—for example how ludicrous that deification of Lady Russell’s letters,7 & done in such good faith too, for he quotes the things he admires—he is evidently so overpowered with the fact of a man’s wife being in love with him that he thinks any even the most house-maidlike expression of that fact quite superhuman. Then what can be in a worse spirit than the remarks on the conference at the Socy of Arts.8 It is the driest & narrowest of the old political economy, utterly unconscious of the existence of a newer & better. Still I greatly prefer the Ex. to the Spectator.—The letters darling are charged double here, the same as there, that is as many times 10d as the French post charges 8d. I once had to pay 2/1 for a Edition: current; Page: [153] letter, being 2½ times the single postage. We seem to be really now at war,9 & with general approval. The English have shown pluck in spite of all the Times could do.10

My precious one I hoped, though I did not venture to expect, a letter today, but I am not disappointed, for such good news as the last contained will hold out for a good while. Still I long for another to confirm it. You will be surprised when I tell you that I went again to Clark this morning—& I am afraid you will think I am fidgety about my ailments, but the reverse is the case, for I never was so much the opposite of nervous about my own health, & I believe whatever were to happen I should look it in the face quite calmly. But my reason for going today was one which I think would have made you wish me to go—namely the decided & unmistakeable appearance of blood in the expectoration. Clark however on my describing it to him, does not think it of any importance, but thinks it is very likely not from the lungs, & even if it does come from them, thinks it is from local & very circumscribed congestion not from a generally congested state. Very glad was I to hear anything which diminishes the importance of bleeding in a chest case. I knew before that it is not at all a sure sign of consumption, as it often accompanies bronchitis—which is the real technical name of my cough, though it sounds too large & formidable for it. I am very well convinced, since Clark thinks so, that I am not in a consumption at present, however likely this cough is to end in that—for it seems to resist all the usual remedies. The favourable circumstance is that none of my ailments ever seem to yield to remedies, but after teazing on for an unconscionable time, go away or abate of themselves—as perhaps this will if all goes well with my dearest one. Indeed, if I had belief in presentiments I should feel quite assured on that point, for it appears to me so completely natural that while my darling lives I should Edition: current; Page: [154] live to keep her company. I have not begun another Essay yet, but have read through all that is written of the Life2—I find it wants revision, which I shall give it—but I do not well know what to do with some of the passages which we marked for alteration in the early part of it which we read together. They were mostly passages in which I had written, you thought, too much of the truth or what I believe to be the truth about my own defects. I certainly do not desire to say more about them than integrity requires, but the difficult matter is to decide how much that is. Of course one does not, in writing a life, either one’s own or another’s, undertake to tell everything—& it will be right to put something into this which shall prevent any one from being able to suppose or to pretend, that we undertake to keep nothing back. Still it va sans dire that it ought to be on the whole a fair representation. Some things appear to me on looking at them now to be said very crudely, which does not surprise me in a first draft, in which the essential was to say everything, somehow, sauf to omit or revise afterwards. As to matters of opinion & feeling on general subjects, I find there is a great deal of good matter written down in the Life which we have not written anywhere else, & which will make it as valuable in that respect (apart from its main object) as the best things we have published. But of what particularly concerns our life there is nothing yet written, except the descriptions of you, & of your effect on me; which are at all events a permanent memorial of what I know you to be, & (so far as it can be shewn by generalities) of what I owe to you intellectually. That, though it is the smallest part of what you are to me, is the most important to commemorate, as people are comparatively willing to suppose all the rest. But we have to consider, which we can only do together, how much of our story it is advisable to tell, in order to make head against the representations of enemies when we shall not be alive to add anything to it. If it was not to be published for 100 years I should say, tell all, simply & without reserve. As it is there must be care taken not to put arms into the hands of the enemy.—I think dear you should have another 500 f. note. The posting to Chalon will cost with three horses about £18, with two £14: the railway from Chalon to Paris £3/4 without reckoning baggage for which there will be a high charge. The inns with slow travelling will cost a good deal & you ought not to arrive at Paris3 without something in hand—so you will not have margin enough. Perhaps less than 500 f. might do, but since it goes safe, & is easier to get than a smaller note, it is better. But I shall hear more about it in your next letter4 my beloved.

I got your darling letter of the 6th yesterday, my adored one. Touching our difference about the cough—I dare say I was wrong, my beautiful one since you say so, about most men having a habit of occasionally clearing the throat. However the habit I had was not what I mean by a cough; since it was not excited by any irritation, or any sensation except of huskiness—was always voluntary—& in fact consisted only in a little more than the average secretion of mucus from a membrane which is one of those called mucous because its universal function is always to secrete some. Then there never was enough to cause expectoration, but when from sneezing or any other accident a little was brought up, it was pure, transparent & colourless—the appearance of health—while this from the beginning has been of the kind I know so well, the greenish yellow mixed with transparent, which belongs to bronchitis & consumption, for in this respect both are alike until tuberculous deposits begin to be coughed up. Latterly too the transparent part has in great measure become white, opaque & dense enough to sink in water which however Clark agrees with me in thinking nothing of. Then you know even that clearing the throat (for so I must call it & not cough, since it is a quite different action of the throat, & one which I can do now, & quite distinguish from cough) went quite away, & staid away for a year or more—it only came back a year ago, certainly as a legacy left behind by a cough I then had. I did not mean to write so prolixly on this very idle subject—but granting it was a cough, if this one can be brought back to what that was, I shall think it cured. Clark does not think the liver the cause or main seat of my ailments, though congestion there in his opinion tends to keep up the other disorder—but he decidedly says there is congestion in one place of the lungs. As to care about my appointments in going to Clark, I have been attentive to them. I always wore one of my best shirts, those with the invisible buttons, not the linen because they were so much older—but if you think it desirable I will buy some linen. The braces I will attend to—hitherto those I bought at Nice have seemed good enough. The criticisability of the flannels was not as to their quality, for they were very good, & quite new—but he thought them not thick enough & recommended wearing another sort (with short sleeves) over them which I have done ever since. I got a new hat the other day in honor of him (& Mrs Winter)2 & on the whole have behaved very well in the Edition: current; Page: [156] matter, though I say it that shouldn’t. The Americans3 & the Frenchman4 shall be written to, though I regret the necessity as it obliges me to read or at least look through the Frenchman’s large book on banking,5 which yesterday & today I have begun doing. After so long a delay I must if possible say to him something complimentary about it. His letter is dated in October & directed Monsieur John Stuart Mill, économiste, à Londres. I wonder if a letter similarly directed would reach a Frenchman. This was sent to the “Economist” office & “returned not known.” How they found out or what good genius suggested to the P. office to try the India house I don’t know. The book was sent to Delizy’s6 & therefore came easily, as his place is frequented by Frenchmen who know me. Your programme of a letter to him is not an easy one to execute, but as I can speak well of his articles in La République,7 I can no doubt make the letter flattering & thence (if he is unlike me) agreeable. Helps8 is a very poor creature but quite made to be the triton of such minnows as the literary lions of this day, & like all of them he is made worse than he would be by self conceit. He is after all rather better than Henry Taylor.9 How true all you say of Sykes’ letter & of Emilia.10 We see however how right it was to make a point of calling on her & that it has answered its purpose. One never repents of having followed your judgment. As for the rascal Verignon11 I read about him with compunction thinking how near the same thing was to happening before through my fault. Have you, darling, demanded a copy of the prescription? for he will perhaps admit having copied it (as they all do) into his book. If it is one of Gurney’s shall I write to him, if you have not, asking for it again? The loss of appetite especially as you are better in other respects, puzzles me. Your being better is I should think very much owing to the fine weather, & it makes me anxious that you should not be in haste to set out for Paris, since you will find very different weather as soon as you get out of Provence if not even before. Here it is now cold March weather with northerly winds & hardly ever a really bright day. The Govt plan for appointments to public offices seems thorough & admirable if I can judge from the Times12 which has had some excellent articles, quite above the Times, in praise of it, but it is not appreciated. The Edition: current; Page: [157] Post13 is furious against it & there is much opposition brewing. As for parl. reform all sides in the two houses are bawling out “this is not the time, in war we must have no apple of discord” in which trash the Times has now joined.14

I owe an apology for not having given an earlier answer to a proposal which does me so much honour as that made in your letter of the 3d respecting the chapter of my Pol. Econ. on the Future of the Labouring Classes.2 I am glad that you think its circulation among the working people likely to be useful; and I am sure that whatever helps to make them connect their hopes with cooperation, and with the moral qualities necessary to make cooperation succeed, rather than with strikes to impose bad restrictions on employers, or simply to extort more money, will do for them what they are greatly in need of. I therefore so far as depends upon me, give my full consent and approbation to your public spirited project—but I should like first to make some little additions to the chapter, tending to increase its usefulness. I must add also that the consent of Mr Parker is necessary, the edition of the P.E. now on sale being his property.3

Here is your letter of the 9th my darling darling love. It quite settles the matter against your coming, & only leaves the question open whether I should Edition: current; Page: [158] not at once go to you. I was in hopes, before, that you could cross the Channel without return of hemorrhage, as that very violent cough (continued for some days) had not produced it. When I said, our plans should be formed on the supposition of living, I meant that they should not be formed (as I was afraid yours were) in the supposition that it was not worth giving up the I.H. unless with a more sure prospect of life than there is. It is worth giving it up for any prospect of life & not worth keeping it for anything that life deprived of you could give me if I survived your loss. Do not think however my own love that I am as you say ennuyé in your absence. I am not & never should be ennuyé, & I have on the contrary very much excitement, the expectation, namely, & reading of your letters. It is the delight of being with you, & all the delight you give me when I am with you, that is my loss. But to think for an instant of that as a reason for your coming, would be monstrous, though it is a very strong reason for my going. In fact the thing which goes farthest with me on the side of not giving up the I.H. at once is, the extreme probability of my having a strong medical recommendation to pass the next winter abroad,2 which would enable me, while holding on here for the present, to pass six months with you in the climate we might think most suitable. I call this an extreme probability because even if my cough goes away in spring, the obstinacy of it proves such a decided predisposition that I am very likely to have it again next winter, & to diminish the chance of that, passing the winter abroad in hopes of breaking the habit would probably be the recommendation of any medical man. As to our meeting—if it is not for the purpose of crossing, why should you go through the immense fatigue & danger of that journey to Paris? It is true that Hyères would be too hot to be a fit place for remaining in during the summer & I wish I knew the place fittest for that, & at the same time not so far as Paris from any place which would be suitable for next winter—but it would be as difficult for you to get to Geneva or Bordeaux as to Paris. This requires a great deal of consideration & perhaps a medical opinion—but whether for Paris or anywhere else you should not think of leaving Hyères till it is quite spring—you will see by what I wrote yesterday that even before this last letter I was anxious that you should not leave soon. I do not think there is any real difference in the facility of my getting away at or after Easter—that sort of notion is becoming more & more gone-by and disregarded. Much more will depend on what happens to be doing here at the time, & whether Oliphant3 or the Chairman whoever he is, feels embarrassed or not. On the whole that is not worth considering. I hope darling that the spitting of blood is like mine, immaterial, & will not continue. Mine has not returned. Increase Edition: current; Page: [159] of cough I every now & then have, & pains in the chest so much & often that I have got utterly to despise them. How much cough have you my dearest life? I have not forgotten that I am to bring the biography4 with me. It is mentioned in the codicil, & placed at your absolute disposal to publish or not. But if we are not to be together this summer it is doubly important to have as much of the life written as can be written before we meet—therefore will you my own love in one of your sweetest letters give me your general notion of what we should say or imply respecting our private concerns. As it is, it shews confidential friendship & strong attachment ending in marriage when you were free & ignores there having ever been any scandalous suspicions about us. I will answer Furnivall5 as you say. I do not know what alterations the chapter6 requires & cannot get at it as the last edition is locked up in the plant room. I can of course get from Parker another copy, or even those particular sheets from the “waste”. I imagine that if I tell Furnivall of making alterations he will be willing to give me time enough—besides I could send you the chapter by post. I send the Examiner again today & am very glad it is so much better than the Spectator. Tonight Lord John Russell is to introduce his Reform Bill,7 so we shall see what the aggregate wisdom of this ministry can do in that respect.

Adieu with all possible love.

[P.S.] This time it is the large note I cannot get, & I can get small ones, so I will send them by instalments.

Sweetest & kindest—to write so soon to give him the comfort of knowing that she was better—& indeed darling the good it does him is worth the trouble. If the improvement is owing to the weather being cooler, it is curious—though it seems likely enough that heat should cause weakness & loss of appetite, but strange that the heat of January should do so; even in Provence. There seems more coincidence in the changes of weather there & here than Edition: current; Page: [160] I shd have expected. Here too it has been much colder for several days, & even a good deal of ice, but the frost went away last night. I am never without thinking on what is best to be done—When I said that our plans should be on the supposition of living, I meant that they should be on the supposition that we could live by doing every thing that could most help towards living, not by doing anything contrary to it—that therefore the uncertainty of life should not prevent our giving up England if that is the best thing to do on the supposition of life. When I thought of your passing the summer here it was under the idea that in summer England is as good a place for weak lungs as any that we could fix upon—but this of course assumed that you would be able to bear the coming (& also the crossing again for the next winter in the very probable case of its being necessary) & that, I now see, is much too formidable a risk to be run, at all events unless you get very much better first, if even then. Is it your idea to stay the summer at Paris? If so & if we determine not to give up the I.H. directly, I must come over as often as I can if only for a day or two, & hope for a six months absence on medical certificate next winter.2 I am anxious to know how much cough you have—how often in the day you cough, & whether in the night & at getting up. Is there any expectoration? have you spit blood again? what was the blood like—florid red like arterial blood therefore quite fresh, or dark blue venous blood? If the former, Clark thinks nothing of it. I see no reason against asking Clark who is the best English physician at Paris. His information is probably fresher than about Nice where he knew nothing about Gurney but only Travis.3—The ministry have produced their Parl. Reform bill4 & I must say it does more than I expected from them—I say more, not better, as it is very doubtful if lowering the franchise will not do more harm than good. It is to be lowered in boroughs from £10 to £6 houses, but with a provision requiring two years & a half residence—which is like giving with one hand to take back with the other. How far this provision will go to neutralize the concession or how the thing will work practically, nobody I suppose knows. Besides this, the county franchise is given to all £10 householders who have not votes for towns—which will take away many counties from the landed influence altogether. Also all graduates of any university are to have votes; all who pay £2 income tax or assessed taxes, or have £10 a year in the funds or Bank or India stock, or who receive £100 a year salary public or private (but not including weekly wages) or have had for three years, £50 in the savings bank. You see there is no new principle & some, but very little practical improvement in the conditions of the franchise. 19 small boroughs are to be disfranchised, & 33 which return two Edition: current; Page: [161] members each are to be reduced to one. Every town or county of more than 100,000 inhabitants is to elect three members instead of two, the metropolitan districts however (except Southwark) being excepted. A new district returning two members is to be made of Kensington & Chelsea, & three more manufacturing towns are to elect one member each. The inns of court! are to elect two members (as if there were not lawyers enough in the house) & the London University one. They have also adopted the idea that universities ought to be represented in proportion to their numbers—but instead of Marshall’s5 & Grey’s6 good plan of doing this by allowing voters to give all their votes to one person, they propose that where there are three to be elected, each elector shall only be allowed to vote for two. This insures its rejection, for John Bull will never see reason why when three members are to be elected he should only be able to give two votes. You will see it all in next week’s Examiner7 & probably some both good & bad remarks on it. The Exr seems to me much better than the Spec[tator]—not such a dry dead level—much higher generally, & sometimes sinking lower. I think it has more & better aperçus than the Specr. I shd like the Specr better if I thought it purposely kept back opinions, but it always seems to me as if its system & preference was for saying something against whatever looks like a principle. The trash talked about Albert8 disgusted me as it did you. That Campbell9 is an odious animal—It was so like him to make the Marriage Commission10 recommend that men shd be able to get divorce in the one case & women not. The Post,11 always right feeling on such subjects, speaks of this as monstrous, & says, make it easy & cheap to both; of course however only meaning I am afraid, in the one permitted case.

Edition: current; Page: [162]

I did not mention you, dear, at Winter’s except saying I called to pay a little bill of my wife’s. I will make Sharpers give a bill & then pay it.

I am writing dearest with snow again on the ground (though it seems to be melting) & very cold windy weather. I hope it continues cooler there too, since the cooler weather seems to agree best with you. I did not much expect a letter today as the last came sooner than usual—but on Monday perhaps—& happy shall I be if it says you continue better. As for me I continue much the same, except that the digestion, somehow, is decidedly worse than it was at Nice & on the way here. I wrote to Furnivall2 in the manner you wished, & have had two notes from him since. The first short “I am very much obliged to you for your kind letter of yesterday, & will communicate forthwith with Messrs Parker & Son, & then again with you as to the additions to the chapter.” The other which came this morning “Messrs P. & Son have given me their consent to your chapter on” &c “being reprinted. If you will be kind enough to send me the additions you said you would be so good as to make, as soon as is convenient to you, I will have the chapter as revised set Edition: current; Page: [163] up immediately on receipt of them, & send you a proof.” I wrote a short answer3 asking for a few days time to consider how I could improve it, & wrote to Parker for the sheets4—they will come I suppose on Monday & I will send them to my precious guide philosopher & friend by that day’s post. I have not the least idea at present what additions they require, but between us we shall I am sure manage to improve them very much. I have also finished reading the Frenchman’s book,5 & as a week’s addition to the months he has waited for a reply can make no difference, I send her his note & a draft of a reply6—It has given me a good deal of trouble & I have not made a good thing of it at last, but my dearest one will. Shall I date it India House or Blackheath? I am reading the American book,7 a Treatise on Government generally & on the institutions of the U. States in particular—it is considerably more philosophical than I expected, at least in the sense of being grounded on principles—& the stile, except in being rather diffuse, may be called severe—the writing of a logician not an American rhetorician. But there is not a word to take the writer out of the category of hewers of wood & drawers of water. He is in some points a very inferior likeness of my father. One did not expect that in an American, but if in any, in this particular man. I will send you the draft of a letter in acknowledgment of the gift when I have written one.8—I want to consult you about writing to Lewis to ask a release from my promise of an article on India.9 He reminded me of it in a short note inclosing payment for the article on Grote,10 & I said in reply that I could not at all say when it would be ready—but I think I ought to give it up wholly. It would take very great trouble & much time to do it well, & so as to be unimpeachable in all matters of fact—& I do not think I ought to spare so much time for so secondary a matter when there is so much of the first importance to be written—I never should have undertaken it had I not thought that most part of the labour it would require must be undergone at all events for the sake of the I.H., & my remaining in the I.H. long enough to make the labour of much use there is now so very problematical that it would be almost a waste of time that may be so much better employed. I am most anxious at present about the Life,11 but I can do little in the way of addition to it till I hear from her. In my last letter but one I inclosed a 200 fr. note, & in the last a 200 & a 100. We are now all but actually at war, & shall probably be in the thick of it in a few weeks12—the sending troops to Turkey & and that vast fleet to the Baltic are like serious work. There is perfect Edition: current; Page: [164] unanimity among all parties here & the war feeling seems to pervade everybody in a manner which nobody thought would ever happen again. I am glad of it, but there is one great evil which is happening from all this—the complete rehabilitation of Louis Napoleon.13 Nothing could possibly have been more opportune for him—Instead of being stigmatized as an usurper even by two cabinet ministers,14 as he was just before this, he is now the champion of freedom & justice, receiving the highest compliments from Tory, Whig & Radical—the friend of England, the honest straightforward politician & diplomatist whom ministers, members of parliament & newspapers are never tired of praising. I do not think he will ever now be unpopular in this country unless he does something grossly iniquitous which he now has no motive to do. To destroy the power & prestige of Russia is a great thing, but it is dearly bought at that price. Then I do not at all believe that while the war lasts there will be a sufficient popular feeling to carry this or any other Reform Bill15 against the H. of Lords. Perhaps that is not of much consequence however.—I have seen nobody this long while, enjoying a happy immunity from calls—except now & then some bore of an old Indian. & now adieu with the utmost possible love.

As I understand from Mr Furnivall that he has obtained your consent to his reprinting the chapter of the Pol. Econ. on the Future of the Labouring Classes,2 & as I should like to make some little improvements first, I should be obliged by your sending me the sheets of the chapter, if possible, from the waste.

I should think the separate circulation of the chapter as he proposes would promote rather than affect injuriously the sale of the entire work.

Your letter of the 14th and 15th my own love arrived about the middle of today.2 Thank heaven it says you continue better, if only a little. How is it my darling that you say you have broken the habit of expectoration? When you cough are you not obliged to swallow something if you do not spit it up? I seldom expectorate now except in the morning while dressing—but the secretion is still there though I do not throw it out. However it is, I really think, less in quantity than it used to be, & if as you advise I exert myself to the utmost to check coughing perhaps it will diminish still more. I think darling if you now have no expectoration at all after having had some, you cannot have consumption: dry cough I have always understood is only in the very earliest stage of the disease, & expectoration when it does begin always increases—How are you now as to appetite? & strength? I have a return this evening of aching in the right thigh—I hope it is not to be like that day at the Hotel des Ambassadeurs.

How strange, that snow & intense cold after a month of summer heat. Certainly going from a London to a Hyères winter would not be avoiding great & abrupt changes of temperature. The snow here has melted again—it is still cold, but not intensely so. Your programme of an essay on the utility of religion3 is beautiful, but it requires you to fill it up—I can try, but a few paragraphs will bring me to the end of all I have got to say on the subject. What would be the use of my outliving you! I could write nothing worth keeping alive for except with your prompting. As to the Life4—which I have been revising & correcting—the greater part, in bulk, of what is written consists of the history of my mind up to the time when your influence over it Edition: current; Page: [166] began—& I do not think there can be much objectionable in that part, even including as it does, sketches of the character of most of the people I was intimate with—if I could be said to be so with any one. I quite agree in the sort of résumé of our relationship which you suggest5—but if it is to be only as you say a dozen lines, or even three or four dozen, could you not my own love write it out your darling self & send it in one of your precious letters—It is one of the many things of which the fond would be much better laid by you & we can add to it afterwards if we see occasion. I sent the Examiner today. I am so sorry & ashamed of the spots of grease on it. The chapter of the P.E.6 I shall send by the post which takes this letter. If the post office tells me right, a penny stamp will cover it & you will have nothing to pay. I do not know where to begin or where to stop in attempting to improve it. One would like to write a treatise instead. As for minor additions, I wish I could get some more recent facts as to the French Associations Ouvrières.7 I must also say something about the English ones (though a very little will suffice) as Furnivall suggests in another note he has written to me which I inclose. The note at p. 331 now requires modification, so far as concerns the first half of it. I shall not attempt any alterations till I hear from you. I will give your “happy returns” to Haji tomorrow.8 The last Sunday but one I took occasion in talking with him to say you were the profoundest thinker & most consummate reasoner I had ever known—he made no remark to the point but ejaculated a strong wish that you were back here. He is intensely taken up with the Russian affair—he always knows the minutest circumstances about the military operations, or the preparations for war here & in France—& is continually saying how much he should like to be going to the Black Sea, to make a naval campaign against Russia &c. He has none of the feelings now apparently either physical or moral, of an invalid—& I often wonder what has become of his ailments. The invalid bay, darling, is in perfect health & looks as well as its opposite neighbour. I hope the dear palms will not permanently suffer, or the olives either. I have made Sharpers send a bill of which this is a copy:

Edition: current; Page: [167]

12

china tea cups & saucers }

3 — 18 —

8

coffee cups 1 slop basin }

2

bread & butter plates }

12

breakfast plates 3/

1 — 16 —

1

cream ewer

4 6

1

slop basin

4 6

12

cut champagne glasses—cut hollow

1 — 1 —

1

garden pot stand green & white

5 —

package

1 6

7 — 10 6

Credit 12 champagne glasses

1 — 1 —

package

1 6

1 — 2 6

6 — 8 0

The bushel of potatoes has lasted just five weeks, about 11 lbs a week. I have dined out 8 times or nearly twice a week—say 5 lbs for me, 1 lb Haji, leaving 5 lbs for Kate, less than a pound each. The pound of kitchen candles lasted from 14 Jan. to 11 Feb, the pound of soap to 18 Feb. Wright has sent no bills, I wonder why.

I received your Sunday’s letter dearest yesterday (Thursday) & meant to have written yesterday evening but I was tired, fell asleep in my chair, slept a long time & woke feeling unfit for anything but going to bed—the first time since my return that any similar thing has happened, for though I sometimes feel sleepy & doze directly after dinner, it never lasts many minutes. I know nothing to account for it, nor had I had anything particular to tire me yesterday. Your letter thank heaven contains much more of good than bad about your health—the bad is the weakness but though I ardently desire to hear that you are stronger I do not expect it till summer. Your having much less cough & uneasiness in the chest makes me think less about the weakness—one’s strength varies so very much with little apparent cause when once one is in delicate health—& I think one is always weaker at the end of winter—you, especially, always are, & no doubt winter is winter Edition: current; Page: [168] even at Hyères. I too am considerably less strong, or feel so at least, than I did at Nice, but I do not think that proves anything, nor am I sure that it would not turn out to be chiefly nervous weakness which would go off in a day’s walk, or a journey, or anything else which would increase real weakness. Altogether I hope the best for both of us, & see nothing in the state of either to discourage the hope. I hope we shall live to write together “all we wish to leave written” to most of which your living is quite as essential as mine, for even if the wreck I should be could work on with undiminished faculties, my faculties at the best are not adequate to the highest subjects & have already done almost the best they are adequate to. Do not think darling that I should ever make this an excuse to myself for not doing my very best—if I survived you, & anything we much care about was not already fixed in writing, you might depend on my attempting all of it & doing my very best to make it such as you would wish, for my only rule of life then would be what I thought you would wish as it now is what you tell me you wish. But I am not fit to write on anything but the outskirts of the great questions of feeling & life without you to prompt me as well as to keep me right. So we must do what we can while we are alive—the Life being the first thing—which independent of the personal matters which it will set right when we have made it what we intend, is even now an unreserved proclamation of our opinions on religion, nature, & much else. About that long journey—I shall not dread it so much for you if the cough goes quite or nearly quite off, which it is very likely to do, though no doubt there will always be much danger of its returning. It is quite possible that the journey may give strength instead of taking it away; most likely so, if the weakness is as I hope, chiefly nervous. It is a curious coincidence that the same day I received your letter in which you speak of Sykes’ return, he made his appearance. He just mentioned Emilia as regretting that she had not earlier information of your being at Nice (the humbug!) This he said among other things in a manner not requiring that I should take any notice of it which accordingly I did not. He seemed to think he had more need to apologize to me than I to him. His enquiries about your health I answered as you desired—“pretty well, but not strong.” It appeared he had heard about us from Gurney & no doubt heard all that gossiping creature had to say—the only thing he mentioned was that G. had been called in “at the eleventh hour”—it is very lucky it was not the twelfth. Sykes’ account shews that the return of cold weather which you have had has been general, & worse in France than here. At Bourges he said 12 degr centigrade below freezing & at Paris 4 degr I think he said: he did get to Châlons by the steamboat, but it was stopped by the ice the day after. Here it was cold, but nothing comparable to that as indeed our insular cold seldom is. I was amused with myself for what I wrote about the appointments,2 when I read your comment. Edition: current; Page: [169] When I go next to C.3 which will probably be on Tuesday I will put on an old linen shirt. The flannels were from Brier’s, but I will get some from Capper’s today or tomorrow4 & will discard the second flannel though I am sure C. meant it quite seriously. Whatever danger I am in of consumption is not I think from general weak health as I am not sufficiently out of order for that, but specifically from the cough, connected as it is with congestion of the lungs which if long continued is always in danger of ending in consumption. For that reason it seems necessary to have the chest examined now & then unless the cough goes off. It was not examined the last time I went. I should like much to know the meaning of that swelling—had it not gone off before? Is there anything permanent about it? I too have been blistering for a fortnight past, with no perceptible result for the cough is rather worse. I subscribed to the anti-newspaper stamp affair solely out of hostility to the Times.5 If you think it better not I will not subscribe again—though surely it would be a great improvement to English working men if they could be made Americans.

Sharpers’ bill of which I sent a copy in my last letter,6 is dated June 1853. The Govt have brought in a useful bill for schools in Scotland7 but Russell, grown as you say dévôt, the other day repeated his declaration against giving secular education without religion.8

I received your precious letter yesterday my beloved—precious always, but even more so this time than many others because it tells me that you are Edition: current; Page: [170] better & shews that you are more hopeful. I put off writing till today as I meant to go to Clark this morning that I might tell you anything he said. He thinks, from the indications of the stethoscope and the sounds on percussion, that the chest is a little better. It is the first time he has thought so, & though there is no diminution of cough, if he is right, that I suppose will follow. He thinks my stomach out of order (which is evident) but that medicine will do it no good—saving a slight tonic which he prescribed. I did not ask him about physicians at Paris as you told me not—but his knowledge of my having been at Nice came from me. He asked how long I had had the cough, & when I told him, he said it was imprudent to have let it go on so long without advice. I said I had not, & it was natural & seemed best to shew why I had sought other advice than his. You will say perhaps it was presumption in him to think or say that I had no advice because I did not come to him—but he was perhaps justified by my having gone several times to him on much slighter indications of chest disorder & by my now coming to him again. How I came to mention Gurney’s name I do not remember but I was a little curious to hear what he would say & what would be his judgment between G. & Travis & the result is that I think his opinion would be an affair of party. I have been led into writing all this by the mention of Clark. About our plans, & first our ultimate plans—we are not yet at the £500 certain which you mention,2 but we are past £400: there is the 3 per cent stock—£141: last year there was from Herbert £43: from railways there is £175, altogether £359. Then there is above £700 ready to invest, besides what is in the Comml Bank which I suppose must be at least £500. We might turn the uninvested & the railway money into a life annuity, but as the railways give much higher interest than the common rate, I suppose we should not much increase the income by that. £1200 invested in railways at the present prices would yield not much less than 5 per cent or £60. That gives nearly £420, & we should add something more if we keep to the I.H. for this year, which it will probably be well to do in any case since my health during that time will probably decide not only on my getting next winter abroad but probably on the likelihood of my being able to get a pension. These things being considered you will understand why Clark’s more favourable opinion this morning was quite as disagreeable to me as agreeable. With regard to your coming over, especially with the prospect of a second crossing in autumn, but even without that, I dread it so much that I hardly allow myself to wish it—but when we meet at Paris there will be much greater means of judging—If as I hope the malady has now taken the turn, you will probably be much better then than now. I am very much afraid of your encountering the great cold of the centre Edition: current; Page: [171] & north of France too soon. It seems to me much too soon to leave Hyères yet, while the place continues to agree with you. The change in the direction is the 12th of April, the Wednesday before Good Friday—but Easter really makes no difference as to getting away unless when it is for three or four days only—& though to get away after the change of directors is much easier than before it, the going immediately after has no advantage quoad I.H. but rather the contrary. I have been reading a little book which I remember seeing advertised years ago but did not get it supposing it to be some merely quackish thing, but an edition having been readvertised just now I got it—called The Curability of Consumption, by Dr Ramadge3 & it is not a quackish thing at all—the writer is evidently well entitled to an opinion having been Senior Physician to the Infirmary for diseases of the Chest. I wish I had seen the book long ago—I certainly think any person would be very foolish to let themselves die of consumption without having tried him & his treatment, the chief peculiarity of which consists in breathing (during a small part of every day) through a tube so constructed as to prolong the expiratory movement. The number & quality of the cases of success which he cites, even in an advanced stage of consumption, are such as quite entitle him to a trial. His theory seems only one step in extension of the now generally received theory. He says: It is admitted that if by any means the formation of fresh tubercles could be stopped, those already formed would either continue inert or would soften & be discharged & the cavities left would probably be cicatrized. Now the reason why the formation of fresh tubercles is so seldom stopped is that as soon as there is much disease, the lungs & chest contract, & in proportion to the contraction the tendency is stronger to form fresh tubercles—& this goes on in an augmenting ratio, for when the lungs are of less dimensions while the air passages remain of the same, letting the air rapidly out, the expanding power is still further diminished. Therefore if by artificial means the air could be kept longer in, & the expansion prolonged the best chance is afforded of stopping the progress of the disease. He has combined very ingeniously a number of curious facts (if they are facts) in support of this theory—which seems at least as good as any other medical theory. If he is right, a cold or cough not originating in pthisis, instead of leading to it, is a protection against it—which is the most paradoxical part of his doctrine. I will bring the pamphlet with me to Paris—I am sure it should be at least read by every one who either has or is threatened with consumption. I sent the letter to the Frenchman4 darling & am so glad you liked it—I knew you would alter the ending & improve it. I adopted Edition: current; Page: [172] “considération amicale”. I liked “sincère” best but doubted if it was French—i.e. doubted if “considération” sufficiently included in itself the sense of favourable, without some epithet added to express it—which sincère does not—but it is only a doubt & has almost vanished on subsequent “consideration”. Atterer is to throw down on the earth, à terre—as in Danton’s famous “Pour les vaincre—pour les atterrer—que faut-il? De l’audace—et encore de l’audace—et toujours de l’audace.”5Houblon is hops. The garden shall be attended to exactly as you say—I have written out the instructions to Malyon6 & shall speak to his man besides. The sticks are in their place in the corner, but whether all or only part I do not know. See how I go from one subject to another by the stepping stone of some accidental association—from the French of my letter to the French words & from hops to the garden. About the article on India7 I feel quite decided to give it up but must take some time to concoct a good letter. You have by this time got the chapter8—As so much is said of the French associations I must put in a few words about the English, of which Furnivall has sent me a long list, especially as it is going among the very people—but I shall take care not to commit myself to anything complimentary to them. F. has also from Nadaud9 some later intelligence about the French, nearly all of which are put down. & now my own love my own dearest love farewell.

[P.S.] There is a bill of 1/10 from one Price10 for mending the butter stand & for a fruit bottle. I suppose it is right.

A long absence from England2 has made me thus tardy in offering my acknowledgements to you and to the honourable bodies over Edition: current; Page: [173] which you preside for having included me among those to whom, under the resolution of the legislature of South Carolina,3 you have presented copies of the posthumous work of Mr. Calhoun.4

Few things can be done by the legislature of any people more commendable than printing and circulating the writings of their eminent men, and the present is one of the many examples tending to show that the parsimony imputed to the republics of the American Union is aversion to useless, but not to useful, expense. I am one of those who believe that America is destined to give instruction to the world, not only practically, as she has long done, but in speculation also; and my opinion is confirmed by the treatise which I have had the honour of receiving from you, and which, though I am far from agreeing with it on all points, I consider to be a really valuable contribution to the science of government.

With the warmest good wishes for the continued progress of the United States, and hopes that they may lead the way to mental and moral, as they have already done to much political freedom, I have the honour to be, gentlemen, your most obedient servant,

Your Monday’s letter which has just come, my own adored, gives me the greatest happiness because it contains by far the best account of your health I have yet had. The cough evidently going away & your being stronger, together with there being no expectoration, constitute such an improvement in all the alarming symptoms as puts me at ease on the subject of present danger, & though I know it does not amount to proof that there is no organic disease, it seems to me conclusive so far, that if there is, it is as in the case of those two in Australia,2 the variety which is not, under proper precautions, fatal. I have always thought that if you ever had consumption it would probably be of this type, as well as that if I ever had it, it would be of the common type & therefore mortal—unless Ramadge’s plan3 should cure it. Edition: current; Page: [174] His notion is very consoling, for he is of opinion that half the people who go about, in good health, either have, or have had, tubercles in the lungs. Of course the strong ground we now have for believing that you can live in good health at all events on the Continent adds a great weight to the side of our giving up England. The pros & cons of that however we will discuss fully when we meet. As to the more immediately pressing point of when that should be—what you say of Directors &c going away at Easter might make a difference in other years, but I think not in this, for as it will be just the very beginning of the new system4 with the diminished numbers of the Court & the three Government nominees for colleagues I expect they will all wait to see what the new system looks like. What you say however of the convenience of Easter for our being much alone is a very strong reason indeed, & I do not see why the double plan you say you would prefer, should not be possible, since the second absence, if you return with me, need not, if we have fine weather for crossing, be longer than three or four days. If you do not return with me, the second visit can be put off till a little later—& on that supposition the earlier the first visit, the earlier also can be the second. Against these reasons is one very strong one that I dread the weather for you if you start so soon as the 20th March—The centre & north of France are so much colder than England. Here for some days past it is splendid weather for those in perfect health—not a cloud either by day or night, & the air the most transparent it ever is in England—March clearness without your plague of March dust; but sharp frost every night, ice on the ponds & white frost covering every thing, though the wind was south or south west—& now it is S. East & in consequence last night was much colder still. I fear your encountering anything like this, notwithstanding Ramadge’s paradox of the preservative effect of catching cold. It seems to me clear that the mildness of Hyères has abated all your chest symptoms (though the warmth of January may have produced the weakness & want of appetite) & I should dread their coming on again by travelling in March. This part of the question however you can best judge of. About my own health there is nothing new. The cough is not at all better. Clark advised a blister on the left side of the chest, as the right side, which was the worst before, is now according to him rather the best of the two. I shall do it as perhaps the former blistering did the good which he says has been done: but I postpone it till Saturday night that I may keep the blister on all Sunday (as I did the former) for blisters act so very mildly on me that unless I keep them on 24 hours they are hardly of any use. There is not much new in public affairs. The parliamentary reform, it seems to be thought, will be put off for this year,5 the public, it is said, being too much occupied with war prospects to give it the support necessary for Edition: current; Page: [175] its passing. I do not think however that in any case there would have been any strong public feeling for it. It will not sufficiently alter the distribution of power to excite any strong desire for its passing. The Civil Service examination plan6 I am afraid is too good to pass. The report proposing it, by Trevelyan7 & Northcote8 (written no doubt by Trevelyan) has been printed in the Chronicle9—it is as direct, uncompromising & to the point, without reservation, as if we had written it. But even the Chronicle attacks the plan.10 The grand complaint is that it will bring low people into the offices! as, of course, gentlemen’s sons cannot be expected to be as clever as low people. It is ominous too that the Times has said nothing on the subject lately. I should like to know who wrote the articles in the Times11 in support of the plan—possibly Trevelyan himself. It was somebody who saw his way to the moral & social ultimate effects of such a change. How truly you judge people, how true is what you always say that this ministry are before the public. There has been a renewal of the anti nunnery stuff12 in Parlt, & ministers again outvoted—& an inquiry ordered—the applicability of all the arguments to marriage, & the naif unconsciousness of the speakers, were quite funny. One said, a vow of obedience was contrary to the British Constn & a violation of the right everyone has (he did not even say every man) to personal freedom.13 Another inveighed against allowing young women under age to bind themselves irrevocably to they knew not what.14 It is for the purpose of putting in a telling word on such occasions that it would be pleasant to be in Parlt.—Did you see that Sir John Bowring15 is appointed Governor of Hong Kong & chief authority in China, & has just gone out, with Lady Bowring & two daughters? Your “much” is a great improvement in the letter to the Americans.16 I thought it would have needed “much” more Edition: current; Page: [176] alteration. I will now send it. The gardener came for the first time yesterday. He has put in the peas & covered them over with sticks. He was quite docile about the lime. Everything else shall be done as you say. Adieu with the utmost love.

I have your Thursday’s letter today dearest so that it has come quick. The Pol. Ec. was put into the post 21 Feb. being Tuesday, instead of Monday, the day I wrote2—the reason being that Parker did not send it till I was just leaving the I.H. at near five oclock, & as I had no other copy I wished to read it quietly at home before sending it. It certainly dear was very wrong to read it without making that sentence illegible,3 for it was wrong to run any risk of that kind—the risk happily was small, as they were not likely to take the trouble of looking into letters or packets addressed to unsuspected persons, nor if they did were they likely to see that sentence, nor if they saw it to make the receiver answerable for a sentence in a printed paper forming part of an English book. Still it was a piece of criminal rashness which might have done mischief though it probably has not. Did it arrive with a penny stamp, attached half to the cover & half to the blank page, so as to be a sort of cachet? If it did not, however, it would not prove it to have been opened, as the stamp might come off. It was another piece of thoughtlessness not to say that I had no other copy. It is, however, probable, though not certain, that I could get another from Parker & I would have applied to him for one now if you had said that you would not send yours until you receive this; but as you will probably have sent it after receiving my next letter, & it is therefore probably on its way, I will wait to see. I quite agree with you about the inexpediency of adding anything like practical advice, or anything at all which alters the character of the chapter—the working men ought to see that it was not written for them—any attempt to mingle the two characters would be sure to be a failure & is not the way in which we should do the Edition: current; Page: [177] thing even if we had plenty of time & were together. This morning has come from Chapman4 a proposal for reprinting the article Enfranchisement of Women5 or as he vulgarly calls it the article on Woman. How very vulgar all his notes are. I am glad however that it is your permission he asks. I hope the lady friend6 is not H. Martineau. Mrs Gaskell7 perhaps? you will tell me what to say. I do not remember my darling, what I wrote that could make you uneasy about my health—but Tuesday’s letter will have told you that in Clark’s opinion I am better; & I am certainly better since I saw Clark, for since I took his tonic dinner pill (nux vomica) I have ceased to have the daily slight indigestion, in the form of acidity, which I used to have before. I have little now which shews stomach derangement except a white tongue, & sensations of dryness in the tongue & throat; and both these symptoms vary very much in degree. The cough is just at present better than it has been lately but not better than it has often been. I find no progressive improvement but I quite as much wish not to find it, as to find it. The expectoration is more marked than the cough as is to be expected since there is as we know a general tendency in me to excess of that mucous secretion—there is so much of it that there is generally no choice but between spitting it up & swallowing it. As to the time of our meeting I have not much additional to say. It is now much colder here, to the sensations at least, than when I last wrote; with north east wind & fog, & I fear it is likely to be very cold in France, but all this may change by the time you think of moving. With respect to the carriage, since so little would be got for it, what do you think of leaving it en remise with the Univers man at Lyons or with somebody at Châlon? If we go abroad next winter either for a permanency or for the season, which we are pretty sure to do, (apart from the possibility of your not crossing this year at all) it will be agreeable & even a saving to have the carriage which we know & like to take us to the South, & we are almost sure to go by that railway. The man might be paid two or three months in advance or six if necessary. I only throw this out as a suggestion.—On Wednesday the directors & ex directors meet to do execution on themselves.8 The 15 they have to select out of 29, with the addition of three nominees of Govt, will form the new Court of Directors from the 12th of April. Only three have declined being reelected, & two of those three would have had a good chance. I have not seen Sykes again—being out by rotation he does not come to the I.H. often.—On Saturday I completely Edition: current; Page: [178] finished the arrear of work here, so that I have done in two months the work of 5½. It is true I have generally remained till near five o’clock & have worked two Sundays at home—likewise that I never remember such light mails as they have been of late. I have also by no means got the two months work off my hands, as great part of it still wants my help to push it through the subsequent stages. Still you see how easily they could get their work done giving me any amount of leave of absence. True I have had no waste of time with Ellice & Oliphant,9 as I can do what I please with them—they generally read & pass on what I write & I have not even to see them—while with Hogg10 half my time was spent in explaining, defending, & altering so as to spoil it as little as I could. I have fairly set to at another essay, on the subject you suggested.11 I wrote several hours at it yesterday, after turning it over mentally many days before—but I cannot work at it here yet, as there is another mail in today—luckily a light one. Wright & Sharpers12 are paid. Adieu my sweetest & dearest.

I have not waited till now to make myself acquainted with the Report2 which you have done me the favour of sending to me, and to hail the plan of throwing open the civil service to competition as one of the greatest improvements in public affairs ever proposed by a government. If the examination be so contrived as to be a real test of mental superiority, it is difficult to set limits to the effect which will be produced in raising the character not only of the public service but of Society itself. I shall be most happy to express this opinion in any way in which you think it can be of the smallest use towards helping forward so noble a scheme, but as the successful working of the plan will depend principally on details into which very properly your Report does not enter, I should be unable without some time for consideration, to write Edition: current; Page: [179] anything which could have a chance of being of any service in the way of suggestion.3

I am sorry to say you are mistaken in supposing that anything bearing the remotest resemblance to what you propose, exists at the I.H. It will exist in the India Civil Service by the Act of last year.4

I have received your Sunday’s letter today darling, the first almost that has been directed in your own dear handwriting—I hail it as a good augury. I do not think darling that you need be uneasy about my cough. It is not what anyone would call much—it is even very little were not the mucous secretion so much more than in proportion to it—the principal inconvenience of it is that it is a hindrance to much talking, or reading aloud. I do not think it ever permanently gets worse. I may very likely have it a long while, perhaps always, & without its turning to consumption, for I am more & more convinced that consumption is a constitutional & not a local disease, at all events “doctored into a consumption” I will not be. I have been coming to much the same conclusion as yours about going to Clark. I never meant to continue indefinitely consulting him—I have his opinion now that tonics are the thing for my stomach & I can manage those myself. I should not go to him any more at all for the sake of anything he can prescribe, but because I feel confidence in his knowledge of the signs of chest disease, & while there seems any liability to consumption it is good to find out now & then whether one is drifting towards it or away from it. All you say about conduct in relation to him I most certainly agree in. About the time of our meeting you, dearest, are the best judge. I mentioned in one of my letters that I think the double going to Paris might be managed if really best. Unless you are mistaken about the notes which is very unlikely, a 200 fr. note has been stolen—I have sent in all 1200 fr. The last 500 fr. I sent in two letters: the first, containing a 200 fr. note you acknowledged—in the very next letter after that, I enclosed another 200 fr. & a 100 fr. of which it would appear that you received only the 100, yet I feel sure that I mentioned both in the letter following, but it does not become me to feel sure of anything, especially after I have foundEdition: current; Page: [180]the will which I thought I had given to you,2 & found it in my desk at the I.H. with the Bramahlock,3 which I thought I had effectually searched & in which I thought it had never been. It is vexatious if the note is stolen—curious too that they did not take both notes. In any case I shall get another & send it. About the P[olitical] E[conomy] I shall write immediately to Parker for another copy. I do not intend to say anything in praise of the English associations but solely to state the fact that they are now very numerous & increasing—perhaps stating how many, according to a list which F[urnivall] gave me. Whatever I do write I will send you & it will cause no or but little delay as the thing can go to press meanwhile & alterations be made when it is in proof. The two inclosures I now send are very unlike that & one another. Powell’s4 note is rather embarrassing especially as I have not the key of the outhouse. I see two large holes, one of them going right under the wall & connecting the two premises. Kate says she never saw a rat till Monday when she saw one after Powell’s ratcatcher had driven them or made them, as he says, “retreat” to our side & established there, probably, the populous colony he complains of. You will tell me what is to be done. I wrote a note & made Haji leave it, in these words “Mr J. S. Mill is obliged to Mr Powell for his information & will have his side of the garden wall examined”: that seemed safe & uncommitting. The other note is from Trevelyan & is an appeal that I ought to respond to, but it will be difficult, & without you impossible, to write the opinion he asks for, so as to be fit to print. But he ought to be helped, for the scheme is the greatest thing yet proposed in the way of real reform & his report is as I said before,5 almost as if we had written it. I wish it were possible to delay even answering his note till I could send the draft to you & receive it back but I fear that would not do. As for news in the first place the income tax is to be doubled, for half a year only at present, but with every prospect of the same in the next half year & until the war ends.6 Secondly the election of directors has been made, & is generally good.7 They have only retained one (Astell) whom they decidedly should have rejected, & Edition: current; Page: [181] only rejected one (Cotton) whom they decidedly should have elected. Sykes & Eastwick, those I cared most about of the doubtful ones, are elected. Hogg has got in—the rejection of him was too much to hope for—but he has not been able to keep in his son in law. Bayley, Mangles, Prinsep, Shepherd, Ellice, Oliphant, were sure. The remaining five are Willock, Macnaghten, Leslie Melville, Mills & Martin Smith, the last two elected mainly because they are of the two great banking houses, but both rather useful directors. Two other bankers, Masterman the city member, & Muspratt are turned out—neither of them any loss—also Major Moore, & two named Dent & Whiteman, all of them some loss. The rest of the rejected are null or superannuated. I am now afraid lest Hogg should try for the deputy chair but I hope Mangles will, & will beat him. The gardener has put in the crops & dug all the middle of the garden & is today cutting the wall fruit trees—after today I shall not have him till I hear from you—but the week after next, I think he should dig the borders & flowerbeds. I wish I could send you some tea—& rain to lay the dust. Here it is now mild again & very pleasant. Addio con sommo amore.

My darling love I have just received your Tuesday’s letter, so I write now for the last time to Hyères, dear Hyères—it will always feel like a home to me, though it is not a place of which we should choose to make our permanent home. What you say of the dust & what we know of gnats, shew what all that coast must be except for a very few months of winter. That is one of the difficulties in our living abroad when part of the motive is a good winter climate—that the same place would be sure to be insupportable in summer, so that we require to have the means of frequent change & also could have no fixed home—as we could have at Paris or Bonn or Heidelberg if health had not to be considered. It is wise to take plenty of time for the journey & I should think the 18th not at all too early if as I suppose, Easter, with L[ily] begins with Palm Sunday. And there will probably be no reason now against travelling on account of weather—here it is quite the temperature of advanced spring—very pleasant but from its suddenness not agreeing well with me, if Clark is right. You would not suppose from my last letter that Edition: current; Page: [182] before I wrote again I should have gone again to Clark—but a new symptom is a reason for going, & mine was, night perspirations the last two nights—last night every time I dropped asleep, & this in spite of taking off bedclothes. This being one of the great indications of consumption (though also of other ailments) it was well to find out what it meant. Clark thought it was chiefly from the sudden change of weather & said that almost everybody is complaining of night perspirations, the queen among others. Whatever he may say, it is clear to me that no weather would produce any such effect on me if there were not a strong predisposition to it. He prescribed a different tonic, dispensing with vinegar & water—which I shall do or not as I like myself. I was inclined to prescribe walking, & to use the fine weather for that purpose on Sundays according to your frequent prescription of more walking which I certainly want, for the pains I consulted Bird about have all returned. Clark however recommends less instead of more exertion while this debility lasts, on that too I shall use my own judgment. I shall perhaps not go to Clark any more at all, unless I find myself getting worse. I shall write to Avignon darling & I am sorry on Lily’s account that the post office is a great way from the inns, & in a very out of the way corner. The inn seemed to me an excellent one—the best I found in the whole journey—Europe I think it was—I know it was not the Palais Royal though that also is said to be good. I will send the Examiner Poste Restante Avignon. You will not care much about it, but it may just as well go. Lily will like the cathedral & the tombs of the popes. I inclose now a 200 fr. note. I hope the other may be found but do not expect it. I inclosed in my Thursday’s letter Powell’s note about the rats—since then they have made their presence on our side of the wall very palpable—Kate shewed me this morning that they had in the night bored a passage under the door between the coal place & the scullery—& she says they now make a great uproar in the outhouse, of which I have not the key. As they never shewed themselves before no doubt Powell’s operations have driven them out of his place into ours. I do not know what it is best or even possible to do but to leave things as they are till we meet. How delightful that that will be soon—how much I shall enjoy hearing from you on the journey—you will tell me at what places to write to you. Now from my whole heart I pray that you may have in every sense of the word, the best of all possible journies. If you are as well as when we travelled from Nice to Hyères I feel no doubt of its doing you not only no harm but good. How I shall like to think of you going over the same ground as I did & staying at the same inns—but you will go I suppose by Aix & not through Toulon or Marseilles. The country will be much prettier than as I saw it—bleak & frozen in the south & covered with snow in the north. I have not yet any answer from Parker to my application for another copy of the chapter. What a rambling scambling letter. Adieu my adored.

If my dearest one got the short letter I wrote yesterday to Marseilles,2 she knows that I am pained to think of her being uneasy about my health & that I do not think there is cause to. I have been three nights now without perspiration except a very little the night before last, though I did not adopt Clark’s sponging with vinegar & water. I did take his tonic (much the same as your quinine draught) but not so often as he said. On Sunday the day was so fine & tempting that I thought I would try walking so after working till near one at the new essay3 I started for Eltham & found out the palace4—the approach to it & the ground just about it are most excessively pretty. I returned by a field path which joins the high road not far from Lee Lane & so completed the circuit in the most exquisite day possible in England, wanting only the Nice blueness & purity of the sky though it was equally cloudless—as it has been, day & night, though with a south wind, for a week past, till today when the rain has at last come. I was not at all tired & felt better for the walk & I shall certainly if weather permits use the remaining Sundays till we meet, or part of them, in walking, provided I have worked hard enough in the week to have earned a holiday. I still think the cough is better, nor have I much sign of stomach derangement except the white & dry tongue—the dryness I suspect has something to do with the too great mucous secretion lower down. The pains in the limbs &c. are also better—for them, & all stomach symptoms I am convinced walking is the best remedy. I do not think I mentioned the pains to Clark, or my having consulted Coulson & Bird, but it would perhaps as you say be right to do so. If C. thinks I require change of circumstances & especially treatment for chronic indigestion, the chances are that he would recommend a German watering place in the summer, which would not answer our purpose nearly so well as a winter abroad & would probably be incompatible with it unless we give up England this autumn. I do not think he thinks my lungs even threatened—it was only congestion he found on either side & very little of that. I have written at so much length to my dear one about my health not because I am thinking or feeling about it but because she is. To speak of pleasanter things, I need hardly say how heartily I feel all you say about the civil service plan5 & the contempt I feel for the little feeling shewn for it, not to speak of actual Edition: current; Page: [184] hostility. I give the ministers infinite credit for it—that is if they really adopt the whole plan, for as their bill is not yet brought in6 (it is not as you seem to think, part of the Reform Bill) we do not yet know how far they will really go; but the least they can do consistently with their speeches, will be such a sacrifice of the power of jobbing as hardly a politician who ever lived, ever yet made to the sense of right, without any public demand—it stamps them as quite remarkable men for their class & country—Of course all the jobbers are loud against them, especially newspaper editors who all now look out for places. Yet I so share your misgiving that they cannot know how great a thing they are doing, that I am really afraid to say all I feel about it till they are fully committed, lest it should do more harm than good. This was my answer to Trevelyan . . . [Here he quotes Letter 141].

Trevelyan’s answer: “You have done us a great service by the expression of your decided approbation of our plan for the reform of the English Civil Establishments; & as it is well known that you do not form your opinions lightly, I do not wish to trouble you to enter upon the details of the subject at present. If you can suggest any improvement in the more advanced stages, we shall hope to hear from you again.” This looks as if he desired support more than criticism, but it is useful as it opens a channel by which, without obtrusiveness, we may write anything we like in the way of comment on the bill hereafter & be sure of its being read by the government. They have already quoted me in favour of the plan—last night a discussion was raised about it by that true Irishman Lord Monteagle in the H. of Lords, who attacked it,7 but it was defended with real spirit & vigour by two Cabinet Ministers, Lord Granville8 & the D. of Argyle9 the former of whom mentioned as approving of it, along with Stephen10 & some others, “Mr J. Mill of the India House who is an able administrator as well as a philosophic writer”, that is the Times report.11 It is evident they are always glad to have me to quote, & we must give them plenty to quote for. By the bye, the writer Edition: current; Page: [185] of one of the leading articles in today’s Morning Post12 had evidently come hot from reading the Logic, & I am sorry to say did it no credit as a pupil for it was an article against the Jew bill.13—I find a good deal of difficulty in adding much to the chapter of the P. Econ.14 without altering its character, which must be maintained, in the main, as it is, as something written of but not to the working classes. I think I agree in all your remarks & have adopted them almost all—but I do not see the possibility of bringing in the first two pages (from the preceding chapter)15—I see no place which they would fit. Not having your copy, I do not know what sentence you would omit from page 330.16 I do not see how to bring in anything about short hours bills well; does it seem necessary to do so here?—& I have not yet succeeded in bringing in your remark on page 346.17 I have translated (with some omissions) all the French.18 I give on the next page all the additions I have made.19 If I make any more I will send them. I shall keep it back from Furnivall for a few days—if he is not urgent, till I hear from you.—While I am writing, in comes a German socialist20 with an introduction from Courcelle Seneuil shewing that he had not received my letter,21 & that he has changed his address. This is a bore, as it necessitates writing to him again. He also says he sent a copy of the Translation of the Pol. Ec.22 but it has not arrived. I must ask at Delizy’s for it. I found the other day to my consternation that among bookseller’s catalogues & other printed things which I found on arrival & had thrown by unopened, I had overlooked an application from the Commissioners for enquiring into the law of partnership23 asking if I still retained my opinions on limited liability & sending a long list of elaborately framed questions to be filled up with answers. I wrote apologizing for the delay, saying I was still of the same opinion & referring them to my evidence24 as containing all I had to say, excusing myself therefore from answering the questions (some of which would have given me a Edition: current; Page: [186] great deal of trouble to answer & would not have been worth it). Yesterday I had their reply saying that my opinions would be taken into consideration (I suppose the official form). By the time my darling receives this she will have had three (or four?) day’s journey25 & will be able to judge how she is able to bear it. I have been trying to make out what her stopping places will be but cannot do so satisfactorily. I suppose she will rest a little at the old city of the popes especially if the inn is as good as it seemed to me.26 How I long to hear from her on the journey, but I shall have two or three darling letters from the dear old place first. I shall always love Hyères because we have been there together as I feel us here all this time, & she has got better there. Adieu—à tous les dieux.

[Mr Fitzroy’s Act for the better protection of women & children against assaults, is a well meant though inadequate attempt to remove the first reproach. The second is more flagrant than ever, another Reform Bill having been presented this year, which largely extends the franchise among many classes of men, but leaves all women in their existing state of political as well as social servitude.]

Page 332 near the bottom.28 “The rich in their turn are regarded as a mere prey & pasture for the poor & are the subject of demands & expectations wholly indefinite, increasing in extent with every concession made to them. The total absence of regard for justice or fairness in the relations between the two, is at the least as marked on the side of the employed as on that of the employers. We look in vain among the working classes for the just pride which will choose to give good work for good wages: for the most part their sole endeavour is to receive as much, & return as little in the shape of service, as possible.”

Page 346, continuation of note.29 “One of the most discreditable indications of a low moral condition, given of late by the English working classes, is the opposition to piece work. Dislike to piecework, except under mistaken notions, must be dislike to justice and fairness; or desire to cheat, by not giving work in proportion to the pay. Piecework is the perfection of contract; & contract, in all work, & in the most minute detail—the principle of so much pay for so much service carried to the utmost extremity—is the system, of all others, in the present state of society, most favorable to the worker, though most unfavorable to the non-worker who wishes to be paid for being idle.”

Edition: current; Page: [187]

Note to p. 347.30 “According to the latest accounts which have reached us (March 1854) seven of these associations are all which are now left. But Cooperative stores (associations pour la consommation) have greatly developed themselves, especially in the S. of France, & are at least not forbidden (we know not whether discouraged) by the Government.”

Note to p. 348.31 “Though this beneficent movement has been so fatally checked in the country in which it originated, it is rapidly spreading in those other countries which have acquired, & still retain, any political freedom. It forms already an important feature in the social improvement which is proceeding at a most rapid pace in Piedmont: & in England on the 15th of Feb. of the present year 1854 there had been registered under the Ind[ustrial] & Prov[ident] Societies Act, 33 associations, 17 of which are Industrial Societies, the remainder being associations for cooperative consumption only. This does not include Scotland where also these assns are rapidly multiplying. The Societies which have registered under this new Act are only a portion of the whole. A list dated in June 1852 gives 41 assns for productive industry in E. & Sc. besides a very much greater number of flour mill societies & cooperative stores.”

Your Thursday’s letter my own darling love, has just come. As you expect to be at Lyons on the 24th or 25th or at least wish the letter to be sure of being there at that time, I do not like to write later than today. I hope you got my short letter to Marseilles & my long one to Avignon. They were written in the expectation of your not being there so soon as you now say—but still they would be, I think, in time. I sent the letter to Marseilles on the 13th, & that to Avignon on the 14th, having written my last letter to Hyères (which inclosed 200 fr.) on the 11th. You will have seen by my Avignon letter that Trevelyan does not want, at least for the present, anything more from me than he has got, namely a warm expression of approval with a readiness to write at greater length in defence & commendation of the plan—& also that they have already cited my approval in Parliament. However Trevelyan’s Edition: current; Page: [188] second note, of which I sent you a copy, leaves a complete opening for sending as you say a review of the report. I fear from the strong feeling my darling shews on the matter that she will be disappointed, but even if she had been here I do not think we could have kept him without any answer to his note till the complete review was ready, & if so the first answer however short must have expressed the warm approbation mine did.—My letter to Avignon also contained copies of all the new matter of any importance in the Chapter of the Pol. Ec. & asked what was the sentence in page 330 that you had marked to come out—but the chapter itself has arrived since & there is no sentence marked in that page. I suppose the dear one altered her mind & rubbed out the marks. I still hold to keeping it back from Furnivall till I hear your opinion of the additional matter which will be in a few days now. I am so sorry the few words I wrote to Powell2 vexed her—I was much annoyed at having to write or do anything in such a matter without having time to consult her for I know I always miss the proper thing & above all the proper tone. I shall now do at once what my dearest one recommends, that is her last recommendation. I shall make Marshall send to pick the lock of the outhouse, & shall write to Powell exactly as she says, & then send for his ratcatcher. The clock that is broken is the one in the kitchen & I shall get Kate to ask Verney’s man to send some one as you suggest & I will take care that the gardener only hoes the flowerbeds. Russell has today brought in his bill for the reform of the University of Oxford:3 it will if carried make what will be thought a great change & in every thing which it touches the change will be for the better—but nothing will make a Church of England university a good place of education, except comparatively. The bill for the civil service is not yet brought in4—but I quite expect that it will go the full length of the report, that is, to make the competition for the first admission into a public office open to every young man between certain ages, without any previous nomination.—It is not proposed that promotion in the offices, or the admission of persons not already in the service to any of the higher situations, should go by competition—& indeed there would be much difficulty in managing that—for instance I hardly know what examination would shew the fittest person for an office like mine at the I.H. Seniority however is no longer to be the ground of promotion to offices requiring talent, & there is an attempt to make merit the sole ground of promotion—the thing most relied on however being that as the clerks &c will no longer be protégés of the heads of offices or of their political or other friends there will be much less motive to favor them for other Edition: current; Page: [189] reasons than merit than there now is. This is the very day she leaves Hyères, the blessed one. I hope (& feel sure) it is a very different day there from here, where it is most gloomily raining, though the morning was fine. The last two days have been bright & much colder with northerly winds, but today the wind is again south. I am truly happy that she is coming nearer. I look forward with the greatest interest to hearing from her on the route & am sorry I cannot write again till I write to Paris. Writing to her is the next greatest pleasure to hearing from her. Since I wrote last the cough & expectoration have been worse, then better again. There is very little cough, the expectoration is much the more prominent of the two. There is now however, I certainly think, less of that in quantity—but there was again a little blood this morning. I feel much less than my usual strength these two or three days, probably from some temporary cause (though I am taking quinine) not weaker however than I have several times felt when nothing seriously ailed me. Clark says I do not lose flesh, & that is also my own opinion.—I wrote another letter to Courcelle Seneuil telling him about the first5 & saying over again much more briefly what it said. Adieu my own—no words can tell how precious one.

I wrote to my precious one at Lyons on Saturday 18th foolishly thinking that it would be too late to write today—but Lyons is so much nearer than Hyères especially counting the railway, that I shall be quite safe in writing today: & it is the more necessary I should do so as I stupidly said nothing on Saturday about so important & interesting a matter as Chapman’s proposal.2 Because the letter in which you spoke of it was not the last letter but the one before, I fancied I had answered it already, & only on thinking yesterday discovered that I had not. I sent to Chapman the letter you drafted, exactly as it was, only choosing the phrases I preferred where you gave the choice of two. I think that to refuse was best, on the whole, for I should not like any more than you that that paper should be supposed to be the best we could do, or the real expression of our mind on the subject. This is not supposed of a mere review article written on a special occasion as that was, but would Edition: current; Page: [190] perhaps be so if the same thing were put out, years after, under our own auspices as a pamphlet. I only wish the better thing we have promised to write were already written instead of being in prospect.3 In any case the article will of course be in any collection4 or rather selection of articles which we may either publish in our life, or leave for publication afterwards, & whichever we do it shall be preceded by a preface which will shew that much of all my later articles, & all the best of that one, were, as they were, my Darling’s. That creature Dickens, whose last story, Bleak House,5 I found accidentally at the London Library the other day & took home & read—much the worst of his things, & the only one of them I altogether dislike—has the vulgar impudence in this thing to ridicule rights of women. It is done too in the very vulgarest way—just the stile in which vulgar men used to ridicule “learned ladies” as neglecting their children & household &c.6 I wrote a good spell at the new Essay7 yesterday, & hope to get a good deal done to it this week. But I have not yet got to the part of the subject which you so beautifully sketched, having begun with examining the more commonplace view of the subject, the supposed necessity of religion for social purposes as a sanction for morality. I regard the whole of what I am writing or shall write as mere raw material, in what manner & into what to be worked up to be decided between us—& I am much bent upon getting as much of this sort written as possible—but above all I am anxious about the Life, which must be the first thing we go over when we are together. I did not get a walk yesterday as I hoped to have done—instead of the delightful warm sunshine of last Sunday it was a violent cold east wind with frequent heavy showers. If it had been fine I think a walk would have done me good, though I do not feel strong enough to attempt a long one. I do not expect to get any more good from Clark, but have a very great inclination to see Ramadge—though not unless you darling approve. I wish you could see his book.8 I wrote to you what I thought of it—& seeing him does not necessarily imply following his advice. Though his book is specially on consumption, it shews much experience in, & I should think understanding of, chest complaints in general. Be sure my angel when you write to tell me how you are in every respect. You have not told me lately. How I long to see you & be with you, my beloved.

I am sorry to have kept these sheets2 so long, and to return them now with so few additions and improvements. But after much turning over the subject in my mind, I find that to say the things I wished to say, in such a manner as to be of any use, would alter the whole plan and character of the chapter, which being written of but not to the working classes, had better be read by them with that understanding, and is unfit to form a good foundation for a direct appeal to the working classes themselves. I have therefore made only the alterations which I think indispensable—and I shall be happy if, such as it is, its republication should do any of the good you hope from it.

I write this my own darling, because from her Dijon letter received today I am afraid she will be disappointed if she does not find a Poste Restante letter at Paris. I had not intended to write till I heard from her where she would be staying at Paris—as I cannot help thinking that Poste Restante letters at that great J. J. Rousseau office must be very uncertain in the delivery & though I have much to say, both great & small, it would be particularly disagreeable either that you should not get it or that any one else should. The letter to Marseilles being written with considerable expectation of what did in fact happen, contained nothing which it mattered that any one should see & therefore I have not written for it. I fear you will have enquired at Paris for this letter before it has arrived—& as I shall so soon hear from you of a safer place to write to I will postpone everything that it Edition: current; Page: [192] would take long to write. You cannot think darling, or rather you can very well think, how much I enjoyed your dear letters on the journey & above all the pleasure it gave me to know that you had stood the journey so well, as is proved by your having got on so fast. That you have recovered so much strength is unspeakably delightful. If I could be at ease respecting your life & health whatever happens, I should have the greatest joy I am capable of. As I shall perhaps hear from you tomorrow I will cut this short here saying only the utmost love.

. . . what is the original seat of his disorder, and though I have little trust in their theories I have a great deal in the experience of those who really have experience of the same kind of complaint.

I do not know how far you take interest in passing events. The time is very near when the new arrangements of the India Act2 will come into operation. For my part, except the throwing open the civil service to competition, all the changes appear to me to be for the worse. It is the most faulty piece of work these ministers3 have turned out—whom otherwise I prefer to any ministers England has yet had.

I have read your paper2 carefully twice through & have annotated it in pencil, sometimes suggesting alterations in the expression, at other times Edition: current; Page: [193] only indicating where they seem to be required. Your suggestions are likely to be very useful—but I think you undervalue what can be done by a general examination. I do not find in Trevelyan’s report3 that it is proposed to confine the examination to Oxford & Cambridge acquirements. All depends on having the examinations such as to afford a real test of mental capacity & good intellectual habits—then the list of eligibles being made out on that principle, each office might select from the list according to some test for the special acquirements it particularly needs—or, when special acquirements & those only are needed, as in some of the cases you mention, it might be allowed to take these from anywhere; & not solely from the list.

Everything depends on having a really good kind of general examination.

I did write to Paris poste restante my own darling—I had not intended to do so because I thought it so very probable that at that great J. J. Rousseau place you would never get it—but as I found by your letter from Dijon that you were expecting one, I wrote on Wedy the 29th, directed Mad. J. S. Mill, saying however very little because I avoided saying anything which I should regret the miscarriage of. I have been anxiously hoping for another letter all the week & fearing lest there should be a worse reason for its not coming than there was. I am so happy that you have accomplished the journey with so little fatigue or disagreeable. The bleeding of the nose is rather a favourable circumstance than otherwise, since it shews that even when the vessels are overfull, they tend to discharge themselves otherwise than through the lungs. A propos I had a visit lately from a rather elderly American, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, Carleton by name,2 who called on me on account of the Logic & of my father’s Analysis (the P.E. he did not seem to have heard Edition: current; Page: [194] of) & seemed chiefly interested in the doctrine of liberty & necessity, thinking I had conceded too much to the free will side, & I had to explain to him that though I object to the word necessity I am entirely with the doctrine meant by it & am so understood by everybody except him & am attacked for it. On my asking him the usual questions about what he does here, how long he meant to stay &c, he told me that he had been long going about Europe for health, that for 18 years he had been subject to hemorrhage from the lungs, coming on at uncertain times, that the medical men say his lungs are tuberculated, but that he has had all that time & has still very tolerable health. You may imagine that this gave me great pleasure to hear. The only thing that I could find he did was to take cod liver oil, & he told me wonders about what Dr Williams,3 one of the great authorities as you know, says of the success of the oil in the Consumption Hospital, that a great majority recover or are greatly improved in health: he told me the numbers, but I have forgotten them. I have tried since to get Dr Williams’ paper on the subject, but I find it is in a medical journal & I cannot discover in what number.4 It is a great pity my own darling that cod liver oil does not agree with you, but I have the strongest hopes that you will do very well without it. I have but a poor account to give of myself: the cough it is true is gone—I do not now cough once in a week. But the expectoration continues & is of a worse kind—it is dislodged by a mere hem, & brought up by a mere action of the throat without coughing. I have more fever, & am weaker, much, than I was a month ago. I do not however think that I am now losing strength, or if I lose one day I gain another. Yesterday (a complete summer day as most now are) I took a longer walk than the Eltham one,5 in the direction of Bromley—a very pretty walk it was—was out two hours walking fast (always the best for me) & was not the least tired, nor should I have been so I believe if I had gone twice as far. I felt as if I could do anything, while today again I feel quite weak. But the worst is that we have lost our mainstay, so far as my health is concerned—reliance on the sincerity of Clark’s assurances. You may perhaps remember that the first time I went to him I had a suspicion that he did not tell me all he thought—but his more strenuous assurances the second time removed my suspicion: now however it is not a suspicion but a certainty—& the consequence is that I cannot trust anything he says that is favourable. However, time will shew, & soon, what we have to expect. If I could but be sure of your life & health whatever happens, I should care little for anything Edition: current; Page: [195] else.—My darling can judge how interested & pleased I was with all those nice letters she wrote on the journey. When I got her approval of the alterations in the chapter, I inserted a saving clause about piece work6 & sent the whole to Furnivall who promises a proof shortly. I have completed an essay on the usefulness of religion7—such a one as I can write though very far inferior to what she could. My poor mother I am afraid is not in a good way—as to health I mean. In her usual letter about receiving her pension she said: “I have been a sufferer for nearly three months—I have only been out of doors twice” &c “I have suffered & am still suffering great pain. I supposed the pain in my back was rheumatism, but it is not—it proceeds from the stomach, from which I suffer intense pain as well as from the back. Mr Quain8 has been attending me during the time, & he & Sir Jas Clark have had a consultation & I am taking what they prescribe—I can do no more.” And again in answer to my answer—“I am just the same, but it is not rheumatism that I am suffering from, but my liver. I thought it was odd that my stomach should be so much affected from rheumatism. Sir J. Clark is coming here at the end of the week to have another examination & consultation. I cannot write much as I am so very weak.” This looks very ill I fear—very like some organic disease. Mrs King9 she says is a little better & is probably coming to England. I told her what you said a propos of Mrs King’s illness. She wrote “I hope Mrs Mill is still going on well.” There is a kind of bathos in dropping down from such serious matters into trifles, but as trifling things must be done even when serious ones are doing, so they may be written about. The event proved you to be quite right about the Powell affair:10 In answer to my note he sent the ratcatcher’s address & offered to send him, but I made no answer & wrote to the man myself. Meanwhile he came again to Powell’s & after finding one other rat, came on our premises unasked & Powell also—a piece of great impudence on P’s part—but Kate very rightly would not allow them to do anything without orders from me. The ratcatcher came the next day in consequence of my note to him & searched all he thought necessary but without finding a single rat—so that it is plain there were none, but the one which he drove from Powell’s & which afterwards returned there & was caught. I had two notes from P. subsequent to the one I sent you but did not answer either of these. It is of no use transcribing them here. Adieu my darling—keep up your spirits. I will write again as soon as I hear from you & happily it does not take long now.

Your dearest kindest letter came today my own beloved, & first touching Clark—I should not my darling have used such a word as certainty about his not having told me his real opinion, if I had no reason for knowing it but a surmise of my own grounded on my notion of my symptoms. But what there is to say on this subject as well as on my health generally had better be said than written, if I am to have the happiness of seeing her almost immediately. About my going, I see no reason against it in the state of my general health but an unlucky complication has occurred in the shape of a boil on the chest, nearly under the left shoulder, which it seems is of a bad kind, approaching to carbuncle, & might be dangerous if the proper treatment of it were intermitted or if I were to go away from medical advice—therefore it seems necessary to wait the uncertain but probably small number of days necessary for getting rid of this, before I venture to leave—& the choice is between waiting that time, or my darling’s crossing without me. I cannot at all judge which is best as I do not know how capable she is of crossing. She alone can judge—but I am most anxious that she should not come if she is really dreading it much. If you decide, darling, to wait a few days till I am better able to come, I will write to you all I know about my health & all that I am doing with regard to it. But you must not think my angel that I am in low spirits—it is true I have a much worse opinion of my health than I had, but that is not being in low spirits nor am I at all so. I know & think nothing now that I did not know & think three weeks ago, but you did not think my letters to Lyons shewed low spirits. I do not at all like the idea of Lily’s losing the semaine sainte at Paris.—Do not think I am triste my own love or that it is the least necessary on my account that you should come directly.—I am feeling provoked by something in the H. of Commons last night. A creature named Bowyer2 has obtained leave to bring in a bill to abolish actions for damages in case of breach of the marriage contract & to make it a criminal offence instead—in order as he says to be like all the Continental countries—& Fitzroy3 (Palmerston4 was absent) though he guarded himself & the Govt from being understood to concur, yet was rather favourable in tone than the contrary. It is mixed up with things ad captandum such as making the Edition: current; Page: [197] wife a defendant as well as the man that she may be heard in her own behalf & the two men not allowed as they are now to blacken her character unopposed. But we see how touching these subjects brings bad novelties as well as good. The Post attacks Bowyer for it,5 contemptuously enough, of course not on the right grounds, though as good as could be expected from ordinary conservatives—& bids him instead of this nonsense, take up the recommendations of the Divorce Commission to make divorce easier.6—I want my angel to tell me what should be the next essay written. I have done all I can for the subject she last gave me. What exquisite weather. I do hope hers is equally fine. Adieu for the present, darling.

I received on Saturday another of Mary’s2 vulgar and insolent letters. The impertinence appears the only motive for writing them and I cannot waste my time in answering any more of them. In this she affects to think that I wish to see her. Will you tell her, that neither I nor my wife will keep up any acquaintance with her whatever.

I hope you are gaining strength and will soon be quite well again. When you are able to write will you let me know how you are. I need not say that we shall always be glad to see you.

My own blessed darling, I should not have written to you in a way which was sure to make you anxious & uncomfortable, if it were not that writing the whole truth would I know make you much more so. Even now I would much Edition: current; Page: [198] rather that what I have to tell could have been postponed till you had accomplished that crossing but any more reticence now would probably alarm you as much as telling all. The “all” then is that it is Clark’s own confession which made me say that he had been insincere with me—about three weeks ago, soon after I wrote to Avignon, he admitted to me that there is organic disease of the lungs & that he had known this all along. My dearest angel, almost all the pain this was to me either at the time or since, was the thought of the pain it would give you. He added many things by way of encouragement—that it would not necessarily shorten my life—that only a small part of the summit of both lungs was affected—that the stethoscope did not shew any progress of the disease since he first examined the chest two months before—that from the age at which the attack came & the gradual manner I had a very good chance for its becoming chronic &c &c. to all which I attach just as much importance & no more, as my own judgment would give to it if he had said nothing. I waited a week & then went to him again when I found that he could do absolutely nothing for me, except recommend cod liver oil, which I have taken ever since. Finding this I went to Ramadge,2 & had a long conversation with him, which ended in my determining to try his treatment. If my precious one had been here I should not have done so unless she approved but even if I had written to ask her, it would have been useless unless she had read his book. He told me who some of the people were whose cases are mentioned in the book—persons of all ranks & classes, some of them of families whom I know—Colonel Astell,3 son of one India Director4 & brother of another5—a grandson6 of David Ricardo—a son of Burroughes7 the member for Norfolk—the family of Law8 the recorder of London, three of whom had died of consumption before he was consulted; four others all had the disease & he cured them all. He shewed me numbers of letters from people whom he had restored not merely to health but to strength & fitness for all active pursuits though many of them far advanced in consumption; some had been patients of Clark, Chambers,9 Watson10 &c. Wakley11 it seems Edition: current; Page: [199] believes in him & recommends patients to him. Altogether I find it impossible to doubt that he has effected many very remarkable cures: & his theory seems to me very rational. He says, all medical men have examined the lungs of people who have died of consumption, but very few have done what he has done all his life, examined carefully the lungs of persons who have died of other than pulmonary diseases—& this shewed to him by a large experience, 1st the immense number of persons who have lived the ordinary time having tubercles in their lungs, or the marks of having had them formerly. 2nd, that these are always persons in whom the part of the lungs which remains sound is more than ordinarily voluminous. 3rd that they have generally had some conformation or some morbid affection which has impeded the free exit of air from the lungs & therefore by partially imprisoning the air has distended the lungs & enlarged the chest. Then it occurred to him to try if this could be imitated artificially, & he found that by the use of the inhaling tube which he invented the dimensions even of the chest itself were often greatly increased & by the expansion of the lungs cavities actually formed were closed up, & the further deposition of tuberculous matter stopped, on the same principle in which tubercles are never found in the muscles of voluntary motion & on which Clark accounts in his book12 for tubercles being always deposited first & most in the upper lobes, because these are the least expanded by the act of respiration. His paradox about cough is not so much of a paradox when understood. Laennec13 & Louis,14 the two greatest authorities on lung disease, both strenuously maintain (as I know not from Ramadge but from my own reading) that cough not arising from consumption never does nor can lead to it; but they allow & so does Ramadge that it may call it from a latent state into an active—he merely says that the tubercles must have preexisted—that a bad inflammatory cough often accelerates their softening & seems to cause the disease—but that in itself the thickening of the membrane of the air passages by catarrh is a counteractive & often a preservative against consumption & he shews striking facts in support of this. So there being nothing absurd in his theory, & his array of actual cures in very bad cases being extremely striking, I thought there was ground for hope though not for faith. He spoke with great confidence of curing me—said that he seldom had so favourable a case or one in which there was so small an amount of disease & now when I have been following his instructions for a fortnight he thinks or professes to think that I am decidedly better & shall not only be cured but soon. I need hardly say that this is so much vain wind to me & will be so until I see it verified. But I Edition: current; Page: [200] think he is a good physician—a good prescriber. Though the inhaler is his sheet anchor, he does a great many other things to check the disease & support the system until the inhaler has time to act: he gives stomachics, tonics & slight sedatives, & fights against the hectic fever by applying a single leech now & then. I have done this four times & if it has done anything it has done good, for I have not grown at all weaker in the last ten days. Before that, I seemed to get weaker daily—but Ramadge said that this was partly from the liver, that I was in a sort of semi-jaundiced state & indeed my yellowness shewed it—now this he has corrected, not by mercury which he thinks the death warrant of a consumptive patient (though Clark gives it without scruple) as it hastens the softening of tubercles in great numbers at once. R. has prescribed taraxacum & certainly to all appearance he has made my digestion better than it has been for a long time—unless it is the cod liver oil which has done it. R. thinks nothing of that—it seems to me that a little acidity which I still sometimes have is connected with the cod liver oil. As to the pulmonary disease, R. asked to see the expectoration, which Clark never did—& having seen it, says it contains tuberculous matter, as indeed is very evident to myself. So that as there is softening going on, I must expect, as he says, to be feverish & weak but this will not continue if the formation of fresh tubercle is stopped, which he expects will be the effect of the inhalation. He reckons it a very favourable sign that there is so little constitutional disturbance when there is softening & expectoration of tuberculous matter taking place. As for the boil I told you of, I shewed it to him when it was only beginning & he thought it an ordinary boil—then again three days after when it had grown large & ugly & he said at once it was a carbuncle & very dangerous unless taken in time. He at once opened it, told me how to poultice it, & it is now rapidly getting well. He did not think at first but does think now that this boil is partly a tuberculous deposit. I tell you all this, darling, at so much length, that you may not think I am risking anything by following Ramadge’s treatment—In all minor things I am persuaded he does me good—while Clark did nothing & thought he could do nothing but leave me to nature. Of the chances of his curing the disease as he so confidently predicts I can no more judge than I could at first. There are no signs of my being better except my not being worse—but I could not expect any while there is softening going on—that he does not pretend that he can arrest. Whether he is right will soon appear however as he predicts great improvement in another fortnight. The man has a very quiet manner & has not, to my thinking, the air either of what vulgar people call an enthusiast, or a quack. But he has a way of evading anything one says to which he cannot give a satisfactory answer—& then he hardly admits that his plan can fail if properly tried, & persevered in. I am inclined to think that he does not generally know of the failures, as those in whose case the plan fails give over consulting Edition: current; Page: [201] him & he loses sight of them. But it evidently often succeeds—every time I have been to him he has shewn me more letters received that morning, always containing more or less evidence of success. I think it was right to try him & I hope you will think so too.—I do not, darling, feel at all unable to come over to her—I could do most of what R. recommends there as well as here—but if she is fit & able to cross there seems no sufficient object in it—if she was not I would go over directly. I sent a note at once to Haji about the cheque book but he instead of writing himself, got a cheque book & brought it to me—so I inclose two blank cheques—but would it not be better that I should send French notes as before? This long letter is all facts & no feelings—but you will know what the feelings are—the utmost love & wish to live solely for your dear sake & for our objects. I am not the least depressed in spirits, probably because I have hardly any of the sensation of ill health. I wish I could be sure that you would suffer no more than I do. Bless her!

My precious! my beloved! what a joy it is to read such a letter & how relieved I feel by her knowing the worst of this business—though that is a selfish feeling too when it causes her so much pain. I am most anxious my darling to know how you are—& that you should be a great deal better before you venture that odious crossing. You will soon, darling, I know, feel calm again, for what is there that can happen to us in such a world as this that is worth being disturbed about when one is prepared for it?—except intense physical pain, but that there is no fear of in this case. I am sometimes surprised at my own perfect tranquillity when I consider how much reason I have to wish to live, but I am in my best spirits, & what I wrote even in the week after Clark’s announcement before I had seen Ramadge, is written with as much spirit & I had as much pleasure in writing it as anything I ever wrote. It is the greatest pleasure to me that you think as you do about Ramadge & his plans, even on my short & imperfect explanation—though I could not doubt that what struck one of us as being good would seem so to the other on sufficient explanation. I think it is clear that his notions are right & that his treatment at least works in the right direction: whether with sufficient efficacy to stop the disease, is the only doubt. I have hitherto done all he Edition: current; Page: [202] recommended. (I breathe through his tube three times a day for half an hour each time—that seems very little does it not? but he thinks it enough) with one exception—he always urges me to get another more complex & expensive apparatus to use in the evenings, which combines with the principle of the tube—the inhalation of the vapour of herbs—camomile, marsh mallow & others—but I have not done this because it evidently is not essential to his plans—nor do I see well the good it can do—he says it is strengthening & soothing. If you advise, however, I will try it. It has long been known that many people live to be old with tubercles but R. says nobody before him had the least idea how many. He thinks half the people who go about have had tubercles. I myself have had them before without knowing it & recovered, for the incident which produced the éclaircissement with Clark was my coughing up a chalky concretion which I at once knew must be the saline part of an old tubercle, which had been cured by absorption. As for Clark’s not asking to see the expectoration—he evidently had made up his mind as to the case from the first day—was convinced that though nature might save me, art could not—& preferred to say nothing which might render me more inquisitive & put him to the cost of additional falsehoods. I continue not at all weaker—though varying from day to day. Yesterday I took a walk nearly twice as long as last Sunday—& though I did not feel quite as vigorous when I went out as I did the former time, I am sure I am the better for the walk. It was a splendid & very hot day & I returned just tired enough to make sitting down a rest. I am stronger & better today after it than I was last Monday. Clark recommended as much exercise in the open air as I could take without fatigue. R. also recommends exercise in the open air, cautioning me however against fatigue. I had no idea what pretty hilly country one soon gets into in the direction of Bromley. I go to & from the I.H. as usual & I think it good for me rather than the contrary. I go in the usual 2d class which are close & give me the same command of window as the first class & the only precaution I use is to go backward. The boil seems extirpated & the place has only to heal. R. thinks as you do that it was a favorable circumstance as to the pulmonary disease. I now always breakfast at home & go out to eat something in the middle of the day—I find this agrees better with my stomach. I send the important pages of the April time bill2 & also the Examiner which, to its disgrace, supports the creature Bowyer.3 The papers today announce that the ministers have appointed a Commission to draw up regulations for the competitive examination for the India civil service—of the four Commissioners,4 three are acquaintances—& Edition: current; Page: [203] as one of those is Lord Ashburton5 I suppose I shall be applied to for an opinion.6 The others are Macaulay, John Lefevre,7 & Jowett,8 an Oxford liberal & great auxiliary of Trevelyan. I do not know that there is anything more to tell at present my precious, but only my fondest love.

I have your note this morning my own darling love. Pray my darling do not attempt the crossing till you feel better—much better. I am going on here with everything that can be done & your presence is not at all necessary, pleasant as it will be. I saw Ramadge again yesterday. If one could but trust what those people say, when they wish to give encouragement, I am doing very well; for he says the sounds of respiration indicate a marked improvement & that he is certain of a perfect & rapid cure. But he wishes so much to think so, & to persuade me of it, that I do not feel that what he says can be relied on. I am quite certain however that I am not now growing weaker, but, if anything, a little less weak, & I think too that I have a little less of the hectic fever, but not sufficiently so to build any decisive inference on. You are no doubt aware that it is not uncommon for these symptoms to abate when the first crop of tubercles have softened & been discharged—the patient then gains flesh & strength & there is an interval before any more tubercles soften & so there is an ebbing & flowing of the disease, but each time an additional portion of the lungs is made useless, so that at last one does not get better, but dies because one has spent one’s capital—this however is often an affair of several years—witness George2—Clark says it was astonishing that he lived, for he had a large cavity in his lungs already before he went to Madeira. But Ramadge is persuaded that by his treatment the deposition of fresh tubercles may be prevented: & though successive liquefactions of old Edition: current; Page: [204] ones at intervals from one another, often happen to his patients, he maintains that his treatment closes up the cavities if any which are left by their discharge—and I am quite satisfied that he does very often effect this, though it must no doubt (though he does not admit it) be very uncertain whether he can do so in any individual case. In any case however I feel sure that his is as you say the best mode to assist nature—& I cannot but think that my not getting weaker for nearly a fortnight while a considerable quantity of softening is going on, & not having more general derangement of health than I have, if it is not owing to his treatment is at least a favourable indication of the chances which nature holds out.—I am sorry to say darling I had two notes this morning from Clara & Mary both saying that my mother is very ill—one says that Clark & the other medical man Quain call her disease enlargement of the liver, the other tumour in the liver & that they think very seriously of it though not expecting immediate danger. I need not send the notes as you will see them so soon & now darling adieu as you will not care to hear about any minor matters at present—bless you my own perfect & perfectly loved one.

I am sure you will like to hear how we are going on. My wife & daughter have just got home2 after having made a very easy journey from Hyères, alone for I was not well enough to fetch them3 as I hoped to have done. My wife has continued in extremely delicate health ever since the illness at Nice4 in which evidently the lungs were much concerned. Though she does not recover any strength she has had no return of the attack.5 I have only lately lost the cough I had at Nice but the cause of it still continues. I am under a careful & minute system of medical treatment which I hope in the course of the summer will produce a change for the better. If you shd be in England this year we hope we shall see you. My wife & Helen desire many very kind regards and I am Dear Sir

I have received your letter of 11th of April, in which you do me the honor to request that I will become a member of the Honorary Council of an association termed the N[eophyte] W[riters’] Society.

So far as I am able to collect the objects of the Society from the somewhat vague description given of them in the Prospectus, I am led to believe that it is not established to promote any opinions in particular; that its members are bound together only by the fact of being writers, not by the purposes for which they write; that their publications will admit conflicting opinions with equal readiness; & that the mutual criticism which is invited will have for its object the improvement of the writers merely as writers, & not the promotion, by means of writing, of any valuable object.

Now I set no value whatever on writing for its own sake & have much less respect for the literary craftsman than for the manual labourer except so far as he uses his powers in promoting what I consider true & just. I have on most of the subjects interesting to mankind, opinions to which I attach importance & which I earnestly desire to diffuse; but I am not desirous of aiding the diffusion of opinions contrary to my own; & with respect to the mere faculty of expression independently of what is to be expressed, it does not appear to me to require any encouragement. There is already an abundance, not to say superabundance, of writers who are able to express in an effective manner the mischievous commonplaces which they have got to say. I would gladly give any aid in my power towards improving their opinions; but I have no fear that any opinions they have will not be sufficiently well expressed; nor in any way should I be disposed to give any assistance in sharpening weapons when I know not in what cause they will be used.

For these reasons I cannot consent that my name should be added to the list of writers you send me.

I have as you requested written a longer letter on the plan for the reorganisation of the civil service & addressed it to the Chancellor of the Edition: current; Page: [206] Exchequer.2 I have been much disgusted, less at the direct attacks on the plan, frivolous & interested as they are, than at the cold reception of it by those who ought to know better. It is an instance, along with the rejection of the Scotch Education Bill3 & many others, how much the present Government is in advance of the popular mind on most important subjects.

I am sorry that a part of what I felt bound to say (in a letter signed with my name)2 respecting the scheme of examinations circulated with your report, should seem to you likely to be injurious. But I hope you will not ascribe it to amour propre when I say, that I should much prefer withdrawing the letter to the omission of that passage.3 In substance it is simply an assertion of what I understand to be the avowed principle of the present Government, religious equality, a principle now very generally professed, but usually with a mental reservation of certain exceptions to it. I hold that there ought to be no exceptions & when a rule is proposed which would amount to exclusion from the public service on religious grounds, it is Edition: current; Page: [207] a matter of conscience & duty with me not to express approbation of the plan, without expressing in an equally decided manner how entirely I disapprove of such an appendage to it. Even without the proposed rule, there will be much danger lest in carrying the plan into operation the so called religious element should be allowed to assume such a predominance as to be practically a cause of exclusion: but when I see a religious test actually proposed, I must be excused for saying, that the advocacy of those whom it would exclude should either be dispensed with altogether, or allowed to be given under a protest against the exclusion.

It is with great regret that I yield to your objection to a sentence which I think is required in justice to those who dissent from creeds. I have now weakened it so much that I hope it will not be found too strong for the public mind.

I hope you are feeling better than when I saw you last week & that you continue free from pain. I write to say that I am going immediately to the Continent by the urgent recommendation of Clark who has been pressing me to do so for some time past & though I expect to return in a few weeks it will probably be to leave again soon after. I wish again to remind you in case it has not already been done how desirable it is that some one who is fixed in England should be named executor to your will, either instead of me, which I shd prefer, or as well as myself.

My wife sends her kindest wishes & regrets that her weak health makes it Edition: current; Page: [208] difficult for her to come to see you as she would otherwise have done. Ever my dear mother affectionately yours2

My own darling love, I write a day sooner than we expected as I find that the mail leaves here tomorrow instead of Tuesday—a bad arrangement since it must make two sets of mail steamers necessary when one set would suffice. I had an excellent passage, except that we did not arrive till 11 o’clock, being 10½ hours. The tide was against us all the way & the wind south. I felt so sick whenever I attempted to get up, that I did not go on deck—but as this boat is made in the American fashion with the cabin on deck (the ladies’ cabin is below as usual—contrary to the usual practice of giving to women what is thought the best) I could see out of the cabin windows. It was a dull threatening morning. I saw the French coast to the left, a long low headland apparently a good way off, & Alderney very near on the other side—looking a bare green rising ground, not at all bold, & less in size than the part of the I. of Wight between Ryde & St Helen’s. We went outside Jersey, coasting the west side & then round to the south—parts of this were very rocky & fine on the sea beach & in the sea, but the island looked poor. The water was so low when we arrived that although there are two fine high stone piers, we had to land in small boats. I had been told of many inns & could not discover which was best—This was one of them & as it seemed to have a view I came here—but it is a poor inn, not very clean, at most passable. The vivres however are good. I have just dined at the table d’hote which is a real table d’hote, the landlord presiding. The cookery is all English—all things seem earlier than in England, new potatoes, peas, & Edition: current; Page: [209] the gooseberries quite large. The town is poorly situated, on the side of a harbour ugly as all harbours are (except Dieppe) au fond of a larger bay than I should have thought existed here. It is much more an English than a French town—I have heard nobody but boys in the streets speak French—& two thirds of the names over the shops are English—but then it is true half the shops have no names at all. It is quite like an English country town & the roads about are full of English second rate villas with a few first rate. The town is large—said to have 33,000 inhabitants, the whole island having only 60,000. I see nothing tempting either in the town or the neighbourhood—I have walked a great deal about the place & found some plants. Tomorrow I shall try to get conveyance to the chief show places of the island. As far as I can yet see it is generally bare of trees, though one or two well wooded ravines intersect it from the head of the bay on which the town stands. One cannot help comparing it with the Isle of Wight to which it seems quite infinitely inferior. The chief feature of it seems to be shady lanes. I have got some notion of prices from an old soldier who has been gardener to several of the Colonels of engineers here & from a Mr Williams at the table d’hote who seemed to be looked on as something of an authority. Beef & mutton are 8d, best butter 10½d, the pound (of butter) equal to 18 oz English. The butter at the inn is tolerable & intensely yellow. Tea & coffee are brought from the warehouses in England not having paid duty, so the price must be the same as in England minus the duty. Bread about the same as in England. I suppose house rent is low. Had a beautiful afternoon for my walk & it is now a fine evening—I shall walk again after putting in this letter. I am as well darling as I could expect to be, & in tolerably good cue for walking—perhaps by & by I shall be so for writing—but as yet I feel as if I should not wish to write a thing except letters to my dearest one. I already seem to have been an age parted from her—but it will be all for the best if it does me any good. I never have been out of spirits since my illness but at the prospect of leaving her & now I begin looking forward to the reunion—bless her, ever blessed one.

Tuesday evening, darling, sees me still at this place for the steamer which was to have gone to St Malo today at 12 went on an excursion to Alderney Edition: current; Page: [210] yesterday & had not got back here at 5 o’clock, today, probably on account of the very rough weather. It is supposed that it will go to St Malo tomorrow morning. In the meantime I have lost what would have been a very rough & disagreeable passage but it does not matter, as I have not at all exhausted this place, which gains very much on better acquaintance. Yesterday & today began with driving showers, but turned to beautifully fine afterwards though now in the evening it is raining again. I was advised yesterday to go by an omnibus which makes the tour of the island stopping a while at the principal show places—but it turned out that the omnibuses had not yet started for the season, & as nobody wanted to go except four people from this inn, the omnibus owner sent a carriage instead. I felt very odd with my three companions, a middle aged man from Manchester & two young men. The middle aged man was very ignorant, the young men less so, one of them knew something of chemistry, the other of geology & they all liked walking. We went across to the north coast & saw the greater part of it, walking a good deal; & I had a six miles walk in the evening besides; to a tower on an old barrow planted with trees, from which the whole island is visible. Today I was kept dangling after the steamer till one (walking about however) but from one till ½ past 4 I went out, a most beautiful excursion, half an hour by omnibus round the bay, the same back, the other 2½ hours the prettiest walk in the island. The character of the island is table land very much intersected by deep green hollows with meadow at the bottom & wood up the sides—but no very fine trees—a coast very much indented & abounding in promontories which reminded me of the Riviera, wanting the mountain heights. I have made a good many excellent captures of plants. The experiment seems to answer thus far, for my strength is satisfactory & my health (as usual) improved by the much walking—the strength is encouraging for the recovery of flesh: for if the nerves are improved for one purpose they are likely to be so for another. But I have been & still am annoyed with pain under the right shoulder blade & between the shoulders. I have written to Clark to ask him if I should put on a blister. I applied a strong mustard poultice last night but from the awkwardness of the place could not do it myself, but found a chemist who came at night, made it & put it on—his name is Trueman & he is a true man for he gave me two ounces more of mustard & only charged a shilling altogether. I do not think this place can be cheaper than Devonshire except in taxed articles, tea, wine &c. I was asked in the market 3 sh. for a pair of fowls, a pair of ducks or a goose—none of them particularly fine. The 8d a pound for beef, mutton & veal is the Jersey pound of 17½ English ounces. Trueman says he pays £60 rent for his house in a street—but says a good ten roomed house in the outskirts may be had at £30. There are no taxes except a small one for making roads. The judges & other public officers are all unpaid, & the military are paid by England. There are many & various Edition: current; Page: [211] shops, some very large & showy—& a great many booksellers chiefly for French books, with which they seem as well furnished as any French provincial town. They are sending quantities of new potatoes to London, in the barrels in which they have just imported flour from America. The people seem all strong, healthy & well off—the French they talk to one another seems a sort of patois which I cannot understand. I have taken a sort of liking to the place & even do not dislike this inn. I was set against it at first by being offered a bedroom with a horribly dirty counterpane & one or two other small things, but the room I have & the place generally are quite clean & pleasant. This delay will throw all the plans one day later for writing & will make me a day longer in getting her precious first letter. I meant to have had another walk this evening but it has come on a pouring rain. The temperature & air are soft & mild as I remember South Devonshire. Adieu my darling—my own precious love.

My dearest dearest love, I arrived here today, having started at 10 & had a smooth & easy enough passage of about five hours in the most pouring wet day there has been this year—so far is the weather from promising any improvement. As it was low water when we arrived, we could not approach the pier, but were taken on shore in boats & had then to walk at least half a mile over rocks & seaweed. It rained so violently when we arrived that I made up my mind not to risk getting wet, but to remain on board till the steamer could get in—but fortunately the rain abated before the last boat was gone & I was able to land. I did not go to the France where we went before but to another near it called Hotel de la Paix, also praised by Murray, & to which almost every passenger seemed to go. It appears good as far as I can judge. I have just returned from the custom house where the whole bevy of passengers, women & all, went in person, the commissioner system not, apparently, being organized here as at the more frequented ports. I walked round the ramparts before dinner (& was caught in the rain doing so) & even in this wretched weather the view was fine. But I can make no plans for tomorrow on account of the weather. The steamers to Dinan are not running Edition: current; Page: [212] now, & the diligences as usual are too early or too late. I employed the five hours of steamboat partly in conning over the subject of justice for the essay2—& partly in hearing the talk of the passengers, all quite commonplace people & yet one heard now & then the same remarks which would be made by superior people, e.g. that the English abroad all speak ill of one another & get up scandal against each other—saying “Ah we know why he lives abroad, he is obliged on account of his creditors” &c &c. The Jersey people seem to be spoken of, even by Jersey people, in the way Yorkshire people are spoken of—one would think they were “far north” instead of far south. From what I heard it seems that Australia is crammed with Jersey people—people of family as well as poor people. The emigration ships from Liverpool have agents in Jersey, & placards all about, & there is a ship of 1400 tons going from Jersey to Adelaide direct in a few weeks as one of the passengers said who is going by her with the remainder of his family to join part of it who are already there. I could not learn even the name of a single refugee at Jersey except Victor Hugo whose letter about that Guernsey murderer3 had drawn attention to him—the people seem to think him a half mad oddity. There are several newspapers in Jersey both French & English but they seem to be worth little. At the inn (all the inns being boarding houses) they reckoned me as a boarder because I took my meals in the public room, & they charged for board & lodging five shillings a day, which would be cheap anywhere else especially as there was no stinting in quantity or quality—I did not expect to find attendance put in the bill, but so it was, & comparatively dear, being at the rate of 15 pence a day. My back & shoulder are a little better than yesterday (Mr Truman applied a second mustard poultice) but they are still troublesome. I am afraid it is the slight inflammation which so often occurs in this disease & eventuates as the Yankees say in adhesion. However, if the weather would but improve I should get on well enough, & should have perhaps some chance of stopping the great & rapid wasting of flesh which has been going on for the last two months & which if not stopped would soon make me incapable of any bodily exertion whatever. But I do not despair of its being stopped, at least for a time, by this journey. I long to get to St. Brieuc & to hear from her though it will be only a day or so later than our parting. If your health goes well I wish to live—otherwise I am indifferent to it. I find the post does not go till 4 tomorrow afternoon, so I shall add a line tomorrow morning. Edition: current; Page: [213] Thursday 15th. Another wretched day of rain making it impossible to go anywhere. I have gone to the cathedral & about the town, got weighed, tried unsuccessfully to match my scissors &c and when I have taken this to the post shall have to sit down & write till 4 o’clock when I have taken a coupé place to Dinan—but if this weather lasts Dinan will be triste enough. It will not be time lost, for when I cannot go out I can write—but it delays the object of the journey. I seem today to be almost the only person in the inn—the other arrivals having all gone on. If it had been fine I should either have found some other way to Dinan earlier or made an excursion to Cancale in the forenoon. If it is fine tomorrow I may stay a day at Dinan, otherwise I shall go on to St. Brieuc for the letter. Adieu my own most dearly beloved angel.

Ah darling! I arrived here this evening & she knows very well what was the first thing I did & what the delight was of reading her precious writing. Though I am here two days later than we reckoned on, it only arrived here yesterday—& has the Calais postmark of the 14th which I do not understand. Probably it did not get to London in time for Monday’s post. It seems to have come here from Calais in one day, which is important to know. But how could my darling think of not opening the letter, & all letters? It is odd enough, I was thinking today in the diligence that as nothing had been said about it, it was just possible you might not open. As the seal was red, no doubt the news there was not the worst news but it was of course a note caused by my announcement of going away. However she will read it now & send the contents. She can always best judge whether to send letters or tell me their contents. I expect few letters of which the contents will be worth eightpence, but still less worth a sentence of your writing. I am going on well—not inconvenienced by any weakness except in the arms, which get fatigued by holding an umbrella even if not up. The pain in my shoulder does not trouble me so much. The excursion would be pleasant enough if it were fine weather. Yesterday only cleared up a little (but not completely) while I was en route, en banquette, to Dinan. Today it was cloudy, but without rain, & I hoped it was clearing, but it has begun to mizzle again since I have been here. I had a walk at Dinan of near two hours besides going much about the town, walked much up hills & from relays on the road Edition: current; Page: [214] here (per coupé) & have had a country walk in the dusk since arriving. I now see what Brittany is like, a table land, looking much wooded at a distance, all cut up by inclosures but much of it not cultivated & so neither wild nor civilized—dull generally but fine whenever one comes to the ravines cut deep into it by rivers. So the plan is to halt in some of the best ravines long enough to explore them. Morlaix appears to be one of the best & there seem to be so many good excursions to be made from it that though you will have probably written to Brest, yet if you get this in time to write on Monday the letter will find me still at Morlaix which I do not expect to leave before Thursday morning. I am still three days from Morlaix as my plan is to go only to Guingamp tomorrow & to Lannion next day, so not reaching Morlaix till Monday evening. Do not however darling write to Brest after Wednesday as I do not expect to make any stay there. As you will now know that I am getting on well, it is possible I may not write again till I get to Morlaix so you will not be uneasy if you do not hear again for three days. One sees how cheap living must be here by the cheapness of the inns. At the inn at St Malo, one of the two best, & with pretensions to be the best, the table d’hôte was 2½ francs, breakfast with eggs 1 fr. tea the same; they got me a real petit diner, potage, cutlets, & potatoes for 2 fr. & charged for attendance ten sous. At Dinan, in one of the inns praised by Murray, I had tea (my own) & with the accessories, & café au lait with eggs in the morning, the whole charge was 3 fr. Of course I shall never think of giving more than ten sous for service except perhaps at Brest—& I have no doubt they will be perfectly contented. The people say living would be still cheaper if they did not export so much to the Channel Islands & to England. About this town they grow quantities of onions, said to be for England. After I sent my letter to you from St Malo, the rainy day gave me a long spell at the Essay on Justice2 & if the weather is as bad as it threatens, we shall at least have the consolation of getting on with that. I began it in preference to the other subject because the thoughts had partly shaped themselves for it in my head. Among things I forgot, one was to remind her, a week before the 1st of July, to send on to the London Library a list of all books we have, including the lost book “A Cruize in the Mozambique Channel”.3 I am very glad my dear one was not troubled with Ley.4 How I wish I could wish away from her all other troubles. As this will not go till tomorrow I shall keep it open & if I add nothing she will know that I am well, that nothing is changed & that I am going to Guingamp per banquette at 12 oclock. I shall go in the banquette whenever I can as it is more open air & the coupé fevered me a little today though I had the window open. Adieu angel mine.

Edition: current; Page: [215]

June 17. On further thoughts my beloved you had better not write to Morlaix but to Brest, as I shall go from one to the other in a day, probably Thursday. It is a fine morning, darling, & promises well. I shall take this to the post before breakfast & walk after.

What a darling letter my own love—& how very much it makes me wish that I may get better when I know how great a pleasure it would be to my own sweetest one. Hitherto there is nothing particular to be said on either side of that question. Except the day of crossing & the day at St Malo I have had very tolerable weather—There has been only about one smart shower each day, & it has always been so timed that it has put me to no inconvenience. I have done everything exactly as I said in my last letter that I meant to—& have been so much out walking whenever I have not been travelling or eating that I really have had no time to write any more of the Essay except for an hour at Guingamp. These Breton towns are mostly pretty, quiet & cheerful, the houses mostly of square blocks of granite not stuccoed & therefore looking well, & slated upright roofs which give dignity. The valleys or rather narrow rocky ravines in which they all stand are excessively pretty, & pleasant to explore. This town of Morlaix however is the first fine thing I have come to—like a Swiss town or rather like one’s original idea of one, got from drawings—the rocks rising precipitous behind the tall houses. The town is on both sides of a very un-Swiss because canalized & harbourized river, with quays as broad & in some places as handsome as those at Rouen. I have walked this evening down the ravine to where the river spreads out as it approaches the sea—about 3 miles below the town. There are diligences here, & generally good ones, from everywhere to everywhere, & they go full 7 miles an hour going 20 miles journeys with the same three horses—but there has never been anybody in them except commis voyageurs going their rounds—the people whom the fine gentlemen that write the Times correspondence are so fond of abusing, but I must say from talking with them in diligences & at tables d’hôte I generally find them both sensible & right feeling—& today I got talking republicanism with one of Edition: current; Page: [216] them. By the bye at the table d’hôte here today where all except me seemed to be commis voyageurs I thought I never was at table with so many really nice looking men. I travelled from Guingamp to Lannion with a rather pleasant & well informed Englishman2—who or what I do not know, but he turned out to be in Brittany on the same errand as I, & had been staying some weeks at St Pol de Léon from which he was making a tour in Brittany. He had been he told me for a whole year confined to two or three rooms & hardly able to walk across one of them—expected by everybody to die of consumption which he still has, but all his symptoms are gone & he reckons himself quite well—though much thinner than I am he walks 20 miles with ease. This is encouraging but it appears to be another of the wonderful effects of cod liver oil which he has been taking for a year. I wish darling you could take it—would you not give it a trial again with quinine, as I took it at first? I really cannot think it was that which gave you the illness. This man broke two blood vessels at 17 & has been consumptive ever since—I suppose he is now about 30. He is coming to Morlaix this evening & he & I are going tomorrow on a very promising excursion into the interior—the day after I shall go with him to St Pol where there is said to be the finest cathedral in Brittany—I meant to go there & return here but as he tells me there is a diligence from St Pol to Brest direct twice a week, Thursday being one of the days, I shall go on by that. I suppose two days will be enough for Brest, one of them passed in going to the French Land’s End, Cape Finisterre, so on the 25th or 26th I shall get to Quimper—do not write there later than the 22d or the 23d if put in in London: if too late for that, up to Saturday 24th (in London) will be in time for Lorient. What a really cheap country this is. At the market of St Brieuc I saw what seemed to me most delicate mutton, too large to be lamb but otherwise like it; & this was 8 sous the pound—veal the same—a tenth more than an English pound—less than half the Jersey price. At Lannion this morning most beautiful lamb was the same price, veal the same & beef the same, which at St Brieuc was 2 sous more. Bread however free trade has made as cheap in England as anywhere—At St Brieuc the officially fixed price of the best quality was 11 sous the kilo or about 5d the 2 lb loaf & I do not suppose we are paying more than that at Blackheath. At Guingamp the table d’hôte was 2 fr. & my petit diner the price of a déjeuner, 1½ fr. At Lannion, an excellent inn, my bedroom excellent & well & much furnished, I had (my own) tea with an omlet at night, eggs in the morning, & the whole bill was 4 fr. The bedrooms are always 1 fr. though sometimes equal to those charged 3 fr. for elsewhere. I have got few plants yet in France—the botanizing at Vire & Dinan in 18443Edition: current; Page: [217] seems to have exhausted this part of the country. Thanks for the Spectator my treasure. x x x x x x

I arrived here, my precious love a day later than I expected when I wrote from Morlaix, as the excursion into the interior, it turned out, could not be comfortably done in one day. I have received your letter No. 3 of the 16th—I am afraid you would not get mine from St Brieuc in time to prevent your sending No. 4 to Quimper, unless the day extra passed at Jersey had induced you to delay writing one day beyond the time we fixed. But I hoped to have found another letter here, written after you received that from St Brieuc. Perhaps it will come tomorrow morning. I propose staying two days here, one to be passed in going to Cape Finisterre. I hope to get to Quimper from here in one day but perhaps I may be obliged to take two & I shall probably stay there a day for the sake of going to the other promontory, the Bec du Raz, so I shall be at Lorient on either the 29th or 30th but as I shall not stay there, it will hardly do for my dear one to write there after receiving this. If she writes the same day or the next, direct Auray, Morbihan, the place from which the Druidical antiquities are to be seen; if the day after, to Vannes; afterwards to Nantes. This journey has been as pleasant I think as it would have been, without you, if I had been well. I have had no interruption from weather since St Malo & the weather having each day improved a little, yesterday became sunny & today hot. The excursion from Morlaix was into the central country of Brittany, to the mines of Huelgoat & the cascade of Saint Herbot, or rather into the fine woody ravines containing them. The country was very like the finer & wilder parts of England, & the waterfalls somewhat like our Swallow fall.2 I went there as I said I was going to, with an Englishman who it seems is a barrister & is named Pope.3 He turned out a pleasant person to meet, as though he does not seem to me to have any talent, he is better informed than common Englishmen—knows a good deal of French history for example, especially that of the Revolution & seems either to have already got or to be quite ready to receive all our opinions. I tried him on religion, where I found him quite what we think right—on politics, on which he was somewhat more than a radical—on the Edition: current; Page: [218] equality of women which he seemed not to have quite dared to think of himself but seemed to adopt it at once—& to be ready for all reasonable socialism—he boggled a little at limiting the power of bequest which I was glad of, as it shewed that the other agreements were not mere following a lead taken. He was therefore worth talking to & I think he will have taken away a good many ideas from me. I shall probably see him again at Nantes as he is to be there about the same time with me. He had evidently travelled very little & I enjoyed his unaffected pleasure in the scenery. I went with him to St Pol de Léon, a pretty cheerful little place called poor & melancholy by Murray, possessing splendid sea views & a really fine cathedral, a good deal like Caen, besides another church with a tower which is very high & rather fine. I came on here next day (yesterday) stopping half way for a walk & to see a church at a place called Folgoat [sic]4 which is one of the sights of Brittany. I have not seen much of Brest yet, but it seems a fine town as well as a fine bay. As to health I have seldom felt better than these last days—the fever I had for two days at Guingamp having gone off. I have not felt quite so strong as at Jersey & the whole of the first week & I seem to myself to be still losing flesh; which however the weighing does not confirm, for I have been weighed here this morning & found to weigh 65 to 66 kilos instead of 65 as at St Malo. It was a more accurate instrument here & therefore I do not rely on the indication as shewing any real increase of weight but at least I cannot be losing much & it seems to shew that the journey is doing me good. Clark, from whom I have a letter in answer to mine, warns me not to walk so much as he thinks I am inclined to but I must be the best judge of that. I am always out of doors, & walking when not travelling. I have seen no English paper except one number of the Globe, but have now & then seen a French paper which has kept me au courant of what little news there was. From that I saw that there had been a debate on the ballot & that Palmerston had made the speech against it5 but that was all. I reckon on leaving our opinion on that question to form part of the volume of essays, but I am more anxious to get on with other things first, since what is already written6 (when detached from the political pamphlet that was to have been) will in case of the worst suffice, being the essentials of what we have to say, & perhaps might serve to float the volume as the opinion on the ballot would be liked by the powerful classes, and being from a radical would be sure to be quoted by their writers, while they would detest most of the other opinions. I have written nothing since Guingamp & if there are no wet days, may not write much for the present, but if I do, it will be today as I have no long excursion to make. You do not tell me how you are. Perhaps I shall Edition: current; Page: [219] have another darling letter tomorrow. The board & lodging (my usual three meals with their tea) at the best inn (a good one) at Morlaix was just 5 francs a day. At the inn at St Pol a person may board for 40 fr. a month—if they even charge the bedroom per night at their usual price, one franc, it is still less than £34 a year. This is the place for real cheap living.

I have just arrived here my dearest angel & found your letters of the 17th & 19th & also one from Colman.2 It is a comfort that my poor mother suffered Edition: current; Page: [220] no pain—& since it was to be, I am glad that I was not in England when it happened, since what I must have done & gone through would have been very painful & wearing & would have done no good to anyone. It is on every account fortunate that another executor has been appointed. There is a matter connected with the subject which I several times intended speaking to you about, but each time forgot. Unless my memory deceives me, the property my mother inherited from her mother3 was not left to her out & out, but was settled equally on her children. If so, a seventh part of it, being something between £400 & 500, will come to me, & I do not think we ought to take it—what do you think?4 Considering how they have behaved,5 it is a matter of pride more than of anything else—but I have a very strong feeling about it. Supposing this decided there is the further question, whether simply to refuse, by which the share will fall to be divided equally among them, or to give it up to Mrs King6 who wants it most or to Jane who alone of them all has behaved decently well? I have copied on the other side Colman’s letter & my answer. I wish I could have had your approval of the last before sending it. The applying to Haji instead of to you was exactly like them, though probably it was rather from ill breeding, not knowing it was an affront, than that they intended one. As for me I am more feverish & fatigued than I was, but perhaps both will go off. My first day at Brest, Saturday, was sunny & hot, but Sunday there was a sea fog which made my view from Cape Finisterre very limited, & it rained all the way back. Today there has been much wind & several smart showers but the evening is fine. This is a pretty country town, with a cathedral larger but hardly so fine as St Pol. I liked Brest—especially the harbour which is a great inland sea, communicating by a narrow passage with the sea without. I heard most beautiful military music both in the morning & evening. Your last letter Edition: current; Page: [221] appears by the postmark to have been four days in coming. I have nothing to alter in the directions for writing which I gave in my letter from Brest. I have always asked for letters up to the last moment. No second letter to Brest had come when I left & I now hope you did not write there a second time. If you did however they will probably forward it. Do darling tell me how you are. If you get worse I do not wish to get better. Adieu my own darling. Your letter of the 19th is No. the fifth but is marked 4.

I arrived here this morning my precious angel & got your dear letter—it grieves me that she has been so unwell. I hope she went to Brighton as she intended & was better for it. My darling it quite reconciles me to my own chances the moment I think she is getting worse, but I would far rather be afraid of having to leave her than to lose her. I hope this is only temporary & that she is better again by this time. I feared she was unwell, but from a wrong cause, her not sending this letter to Brest, if she had I should have received it on Saturday but I believe I asked her not to write to Brest later than Tuesday. This letter has the London postmark of 21st, Paris & Nantes of 22nd so you see, letters get to Nantes the very next day, being the whole way by railroad. So Nantes will be safe to write to until you hear from me from Nantes. I wish I had seen a full report of Palmerston’s speech2—what was given of it in the Spectator did not at all account for your high opinion of it, certainly only the commonplaces I have been familiar with all my life—while the speeches for the ballot were below even the commonplaces. The ballot has sunk to far inferior men, the Brights3 &c. When it was in my father’s hands or even Grote’s4 such trash was not spoken as that the suffrage is a right &c &c. But Palmerston’s saying that a person who will not sacrifice something for his opinion is not fit to have a vote seems to me to involve the same fallacy. It is not for his own sake that one wishes him to have a vote. It is we who suffer because those who would vote with us are afraid Edition: current; Page: [222] to do so. As for the suffrage being a trust, it has always been so said by the Whig & Tory opponents of the ballot & used to be agreed in by its radical supporters. I have not seen a single new argument respecting the ballot for many years except one or two of yours. I do not feel in the way you do the desirableness of writing an article for the Ed[inburgh] on it. There will be plenty of people to say all that is to be said against the ballot—all it wants from us is the authority of an ancient radical & that it will have by what is already written & fit to be published as it is5—but I now feel so strongly the necessity of giving the little time we are sure of to writing things which nobody could write but ourselves, that I do not like turning aside to anything else. I do not find the essay on Justice goes on well. I wrote a good long piece of it at Quimper, but it is too metaphysical, & not what is most wanted but I must finish it now in that vein & then strike into another. Quimper & Quimperlé are two of the prettiest towns I have seen. All the towns in Brittany are prettily situated, being in vallies & by clear streams, & about each of these there are evidently enough of pretty walks for a week’s exploring. The weather however (which up to Brest was much better than yours seems to have been) has been very bad since—today is the first day not rainy since Monday—today is bright & fine but it is the fineness of a confirmed wet summer which I now fear we are going to have. But I have managed to get some good walking every day besides the travelling which was always with an open front either the banquette of a diligence, the cabriolet of the courier or a cabriolet voiture. I am also now, I think, in as good walking condition as I was at first, which for several days I certainly was not—whether accidentally or because I had overdone, & exceeded my strength. I think the day I partially rested at Quimper did me good. I did not go to the Bec du Raz & the Baie des Trépassés as it was too far & bad weather, but went to the nearer Peninsula of Penmarch instead, a fine rocky coast, & I got some plants. Next day I went to Quimperlé but it rained nearly all the way—it cleared however in the evening & I had a walk. This town is uninteresting: but not as Murray pretends, dirty—on the contrary it is extremely clean: but Murray’s information is almost always either false or behind hand. However the inn here, recommended by him, is one of the best I have come to. I have had a nice walk, even a pretty one, though the country is uninteresting compared with most of the other places. Though I do not now expect letters before Nantes I shall ask for them at Auray & Vannes. Adieu & a thousand loves & blessings.

[P.S.] I suppose H’s letter6 had nothing worth telling now when the end is come.

I arrived here darling this afternoon from Vannes & found her two letters. To begin with what I feel most about—surely dearest love it is full time to have some advice about the swelling in the side? either to see Tuson2 in the way you thought of doing or to send for South3—it would be so advantageous in case of any sudden illness to have some competent person near who knew something of the previous state of your health—& I cannot think my darling angel that it can be safe to let this pain in the side grow worse—I have no doubt it is something not necessarily connected with the general state of the health & capable of being treated & cured separately—though tending while it continues, to make all other illness worse. Then about the things required by bad health which you say you are small luxuries—let us have them, that is, you have them darling, at least up to our income. We are now living much within it—& we are not likely to lose more than £300 a year for the Directors are not likely in the circumstances to give less pension than the highest they can give by law, which in my case would be, I am almost sure, three fourths of the salary. I suppose we can decide tolerably well now what mode of life to lay our plans for. I suppose we may resolve to go abroad for the winter—for my own part I now feel pretty confident of being alive then, & not so much worse as to make it impossible or useless for me to go—& though if we are alive we may probably come to England next spring, I suppose we shall never again live in England permanently, so we can judge well enough what we can afford, & have everything desirable which is consistent with it. About that matter of my mother’s inheritance,4 of course as your feeling is so directly contrary, mine is wrong, & I give it up entirely—but it was not the vanity of “acting on the supposition of being a man of fortune”—it was something totally different—it was wishing that they should not be able to say that I had taken away anything from their resources. However that is ended, & I need say no more about it.—You do not mention my letter from Brest, but I suppose you received it. I cannot imagine why that from Morlaix took so long. You must have by this time received the one from Lorient. Since that time there have been four beautiful days, & I hoped the Edition: current; Page: [224] fine weather had come, but alas, it rained much last night & a few showers this morning: it has however been fine since. I staid one night at Auray & two at Vannes, & saw the Druidical antiquities partly from one & partly from the other—a Frenchman at the table d’hote at Auray advised me to go from Vannes to the places which are best gone to in a boat, for the sake of going through the inland sea called Morbihan & its multitude of isles—& I am very glad I did so, for the panorama of them as seen from two islands on which I landed was quite unlike anything else in Brittany, & as is always the case with these things, what one sees by the way is much better worth seeing than the things themselves. I spent all yesterday on the water except a three hours walk about Locmariaker between going & returning—it was lucky I had the fine weather when it was so much wanted, for distant views & water scenery. It was most beautiful & enjoyable. I meant to write to her from Vannes, but did not get back till after post time & thought it better to write from here. I had some very nice walking too at Auray & much of it. That part however of Brittany is in general much tamer than those I had seen before. The northern part is as I described, table land intersected by deep ravines containing clear streams. The corner by Quimper & Quimperlé is much prettier, being all hills & deep valleys, with little or no table land. The rest, from Lorient to Nantes, comparatively flat & tame, though very pretty in parts as at Auray where the river, fine when the tide is up, flows among wooded though not high hills. The south coast also is not nearly so cheap for travelling as the north—whether for living I do not know, for they say prices have been raised in all the further end of Brittany by provisioning the Brest fleet—but at Quimper as well as Brest the table d’hôte was 3 francs & nowhere since has it been less than 2½ & they ask, for all but their worst bedrooms, 1½ francs. However at Lorient veal & mutton were only 9 sous & beef 10. Butter (good all through Brittany) they asked in the market 13 sous for a pound of. There, as at Brest, I am told the best meat is 15 sous, but I have not asked at the market yet. Murray is as ridiculously wrong as usual about the fineness of this town. The quais which are the only thing pretending to be fine are infinitely below Rouen—the best part about equal to the worst of Lyons & no fine buildings, for the cathedral, though of a stately height & with fine columns, wants length & is altogether poor externally. It is quite funny to see how the travelling English who inform Murray, copy the ways of thinking & judging of Frenchmen. I expected to find Brittany very bare & wild instead of which it is the best wooded part of all France, remarkably like England in general appearance, intensely green, with decidedly less of heathy ground than any part of the south of England, & what there is, not looking wild because cut up into inclosed patches. Murray is quite poetical about the stones at Carnac which he says are on a blasted heath, as dreary as Macbeth’s—now the heath is a cheerful piece of greenery close to a large village & there are oats growing between Edition: current; Page: [225] some of the rows of stones. Brittany however must be much altered—the most splendid roads cut it in all directions & the marks of recent cutting down of hills & terracing the slopes of roads by changing their direction are perpetual. As for my health, I am still feverish, for the last 24 hours more so than usual—but my strength has come back & I can walk as well or better than before I set out. I do not expect to find that I have lost any flesh since Brest. I shall get myself weighed tomorrow. I think the excursion has done me good, though there has not been time for it to do much. I do not know whether to prolong it or not. I found a letter here from Clark advising me to stay a few weeks longer—I shall not do that, but I feel rather inclined, as I am so near, to employ a week in seeing something of La Vendée—this however I shall not do unless I hear that you are better & that you advise it. Letters will come here very quickly, & en attendant I shall go to Pornic, the sea bathing place we have often wished to see—the letter (however short) which I hope to find at the post office here when I come back, will decide me whether to take the additional week or return at once, by Angers & Saumur, then crossing the country to the Rouen railroad & taking the steamboat from Dieppe. Adieu my own precious darling angel.

You will be surprised, darling, at my writing again directly, but I cannot tell you too soon what you will be glad to hear. I was weighed this morning & found to weigh 67 kilos. The difference between this & 65 at St Malo, 65 to 66 by the more accurate instrument at Brest, is more than can be accounted for by any inaccuracies & is the surest proof that the excursion has done me good. Even if I have gained much less than four pounds in three weeks, it is very encouraging & makes me think I may have still two or three years of life in me. If so, much may be done in the time. I have been going about this town all the morning, pleasantly enough, as every French town contains much interesting & is at any rate agreeable. I spent a very pleasant hour in the picture gallery in which there are some good pictures, & old copies of many more. The town itself improves on further knowledge; I had not seen the best of the quais, which is below the main body of the town, & opposite the shipping, but it is not equal to Rouen or near it. Beef & veal here are 12 sous the pound, mutton 14—the first place where I have found mutton the dearest. Tomorrow at ½ past 7 I shall start by the steamboat Edition: current; Page: [226] for Paimboeuf & from there to Pornic. I have heard nothing of my St Pol acquaintance.2 I want to order mourning, a coat & trousers, from Carbery, & would write to him but I do not know where to tell him to send the things: Will she darling either tell me what she thinks, or order them—perhaps Lily would write a note in my name. Thanks darling for the Spectator which this time is better than usual & now adieu with a thousand loves & blessings.

I have just returned from Pornic my own precious one & have found here her two letters. All the letters she mentions have come safe & in their right order though several had been lying some time in the post offices before I received them. I am glad she is going to see Tuson—I am very anxious & do not much like prolonging my absence when I do not hear that you are better—however on the whole I think it is best that I should make the excursion I projected into La Vendée as I am so evidently benefiting by the journey. The two days which I spent at Pornic I have been quite remarkably well & stronger for walking than I have been at all since I began to lose strength; as well as very little feverish. Today I am rather more feverish again but that is a symptom which has always varied very much up & down. Pornic is such a pretty, funny little place—about the size of Rottingdean, & in much the same situation, except in being at the head of a little cove—the height of the place above the sea much the same but the actual cliff (or rocky escarpment rather, for one can in most places get down it) only about half that height—but the place & its paths & drives over the sea are very pretty & at present very quiet & the whole place is fragrant with Spanish broom which they plant everywhere. I looked at three or four of the houses or lodgings to let—they are all very clean & with a little additional furniture we could inhabit some of them—the general demand seems to be 500 francs for the season, or 200 the month—very dear therefore—but the best I saw would take less & the next best asked less (130 fr. the month). There are some good (or at least better) looking ones out of the town in good situations. The sea view is very fine with the long narrow island of Noirmoutier six leagues off, closing up a considerable Edition: current; Page: [227] part of it. There is another watering place, le Croisic, apparently more pretentious, but this is further off, on the coast of Brittany, towards Vannes, & I have not seen it. I went down the Loire in the steamboat to the very mouth of the mouth, at Saint Nazaire but the country on both sides is flat & uninteresting. I do not know how far I shall go into La Vendée as it will depend on how I like it, but in any case it will be convenient to return through Nantes, so darling write there up to the 12th inclusive. I hope she has not written to Rouen as that will be so long to wait. The weather has generally been very pleasant—sunny & warm, with a few very short showers every day—it seems to be much worse with you—three wet summers in succession—a thing that has not happened since 1828/29/30 & of those only 1829 was as bad as these have been. I have not only gained some good but probably escaped some harm by being away at a time when I could probably have walked little. On returning from Pornic I found here my consumptive acquaintance Mr Pope & he is going into La Vendée with me. I do not know whether much can be made of him but he seems to me the sort of person for whom chiefly we write & I should like to send him the Pol. Economy. At present I do not believe he ever heard of it or has the least idea who I am, except that he now knows my name. About the ballot, it is quite true that few speak or write against it but persons of Whig or Tory tendencies—but one of Sydney Smith’s most popular things,2 sold at railway stations &c is an attack on it & there are & will be plenty of speakers against it & plenty of articles in all the newspapers—the daily ones I mean—except the D. News & perhaps the Advertiser. On reconsideration darling, direct aux Sables d’Olonne, Vendée, up to the 11th & Nantes to the 13th inclusive. Adieu with all possible love.

My last letter, my precious one, was I believe wrong numbered; it was dated Nantes July 9. It was really No. 12 & this is No. 13. I have got thus Edition: current; Page: [228] far very pleasantly, & am evidently benefiting more & more—my increase of feverishness has quite gone off; these last days I have had very little fever & though I cannot perceive by the eye any increase of flesh, I shall probably find some increase of weight when I am next weighed. Another sign of improvement is that there is certainly some enlargement of the chest. I had not measured for some time, & I now find a very visible difference. I am stronger & more capable for walking purposes than I have yet been. So you see darling the journey has answered its purpose as far as I am concerned. I am anxious for news of her but I probably shall arrive at Les Sables soon after her letter. This country is on the whole inferior to Brittany but has some very pretty places & the weather has been extremely accommodating, being fine at all walking times & raining chiefly at night, or if by day, during the times when it is of no consequence. Having a not disagreeable companion in this excursion makes a variety, an additional change from travelling alone; though the change to travelling alone will be quite as pleasing a variety when it comes, for the man2 has very little in him though perfectly well disposed to receive. We went on Sunday to Clisson, an exceedingly pretty rural valley with a fine old castle & two shew pleasure grounds which would be very pretty indeed if they were kept as they would be in England; Monday to Mortagne, Tuesday to Les Herbiers & today here, having at each place two long walks & a good stroll besides. There are hardly any towns & very few large villages—the country is bosky & green, the best of it like Brittany, & therefore like England, the greater part like Warwickshire, & the tamer inland counties—a large fine ruined castle of which one never heard, at every village with almost no exception—the towns & villages all new, having been all destroyed in the Vendean war3 either by the royalists or the republicans—but nothing whatever to make one like the idea of living here. All that Murray says of the country either was never true or has ceased to be so; it is more uniformly highly cultivated than any part of England which I know of, & the lanes he talks about are simply English lanes, very like those in Sussex—but the whole country both in matter & spirit must be extremely changed by the fine roads which now pierce it as the French happily say in all directions. The crops are splendid & the people from all accounts better off than in most parts of France—a labourer earning about £24 a year & his food. The eatables are not so good as in Brittany—there I never once met with any but very good butter even in the smallest places—here it is seldom good & I have never yet found it very good. This town, the only one of any size in La Vendée, except Les Sables, was built by Napoleon4 as a means of coercing the Vendeans & is a very inactive dead looking though not uncheerful Edition: current; Page: [229] place—unluckily not in a beautiful situation. We have now got into the Plain of La Vendée, having left the hilly part of Les Herbiers—the last point, the Mont des Alouettes, where the Duchess of Berry5 built a chapel, commands a view almost from Nantes to the very opposite extremity of La Vendée & the weather was most splendid for it. We liked it so much that we walked up to it again in the evening. We go tomorrow to La Rochelle which will be the extreme point of my peregrinations & shall then make a round to Les Sables & from there to Nantes. My darling will be safe in writing to Nantes up to the 15th. I shall write again from Les Sables if not sooner. Adieu my own precious with a thousand thousand loves.

My own dearest love, I had not the slightest expectation of writing to you from this place or of coming here at all—my plan was to go north from La Rochelle by the roundabout way of Niort & Fontenay—but it appeared that the only ways to get from La Rochelle to Niort today (except by voiture which was too dear even for two) was at 7 in the morning inside a diligence or at 5 in the evening—the first was undesirable on all accounts & as the people at the Messageries said there was a diligence from Rochefort to Niort at the same hour in the afternoon, it seemed as well, having staid all yesterday at La Rochelle, to take this place on the way to Niort—but on coming here it appeared there is no diligence till 5 tomorrow morning. This is the first contretemps that has happened to me in the whole journey—but I shall not lose a day by it though I may be obliged to shorten my walk either at Niort or Fontenay. I shall in any case be at Les Sables on Monday evening. I did not care at all for seeing Rochefort but without Niort & Fontenay one has not seen La Vendée & I had laid my plans so as have a splendid walk at each. You may know by my taking it so leisurely that the journey continues to do me good, indeed it seems to do me more & more. I was weighed at La Rochelle & had gained two pounds more, making six pounds since St Malo—it shews how much weight I must have lost before, as these six pounds make not the smallest perceptible difference to the eye. Edition: current; Page: [230] I have gained still more in strength: yesterday at Rochelle I was out from eight in the morning till nine at night literally with only the exceptions of breakfast & dinner—& walking all the time except an occasional sitting on a bank. La Rochelle is a very nice town, very clean & quiet, with arcades along almost all the streets like Suza and Bologna—the baths are by the seaside a little way out of the town, in a very prettily planted garden & shrubbery along the seaside something like the Villa Reale at Naples, but short in comparison. The military band plays there twice a week in the evening & we happened to hit upon it by accident at the very time. The garden was full of French people—I saw no others—very gay & smart, though not looking like our idea of ladies or gentlemen. The whole place is very pretty; there is a reading room & concert room at the baths, everything in short except baths themselves. I went in to see the kind of thing—they were little oblong tin cuvettes, smaller & less good looking than those at Pornic, which were very like our bath at home but smaller. There are people passing & repassing to the baths all day, sometimes in private carriages, & it is evident that the place is very much used as a watering place by well off French people—who seem by the bye when they go there to take all their children with them. It is odd they nowhere in France contrive to have baths fit to use. Dirty however the baths did not seem, & still less at Pornic, where the people evidently pique themselves on their propreté. La Rochelle is hardly pretty enough to wish to live there, though the sea views are very fine: but it might be pleasant to visit. Meat, the first quality of all kinds, was at the market 12 sous: butter, tolerable but not equal to Brittany, 15. This place, Rochefort, is a quite modern town, built by Louis XIV & very neat & pretty of the kind but no pretty country near. It is now & has for some days been splendid weather—not too hot because tempered by a fine sea wind. All the corn seems fit to cut & some is already cut. I am impatient to get to Les Sables for her letter, & nothing but the great good it is doing me would have induced me thus to prolong the excursion—this contretemps about the coaches therefore bores me. Bless you my precious precious life.

My dearest angel, as I found no letters at Les Sables I came on at once here & found your letter dated the 12th which tells me of another to Rouen Edition: current; Page: [231] & seems to tell of another here, for it says “I told you in my last that I had written to Rouen”—the last I received before this, was dated the 6th & said not that you had but that you would write next to Rouen. I hope darling that your memory, generally so accurate, has confounded these two things—for otherwise a letter has been lost—the very civil man at the post office here made a great search for it but without effect. I suppose the letter at Rouen will tell me what I most wanted to hear viz. what Tuson said. I found here a note from Colman inclosing the note of my mother, which he mentioned before. It is dated 27th March & runs thus—“I did not mention the furniture in my will which you were so kind as to leave for my use, but as some of it is a great deal worn, I hope you will take the best of it, & do as I should have done if I had considered it my own, give the rest to your two unmarried sisters, Clara & Harriet. Your plate is taken care of & will be restored to you by your sisters. God bless you my dear son—I sincerely hope that you & Mrs Mill will enjoy many many years of uninterrupted happiness.” I remember, before, she could not or would not understand that the furniture was given to her out & out, though it was repeatedly impressed on her. Colman says, “I inclose your mother’s letter which was opened agreeably to your permission. With regard to the furniture C[lara] & H[arriet] wish me to say that as they mean to give up housekeeping, they have no wish to receive from you that share of the furniture to which your mother refers in her letter, & as they intend leaving the house as soon as possible they would be obliged by your letting them know what you wish done with it & where you wish your plate to be sent. I have written to Mr Wotton2 my cotrustee to arrange if possible to transfer the funds left by Mrs Burrow’s3 will on Monday next, & should you be able to send it I should be glad of a line by that time to say whether you wish a transfer made or the amount sold only, & if the latter into whose hands you wish it paid. If I don’t hear from you we shall adopt the usual course.” The last matter therefore has by this time settled itself—as to the first, it is most unnecessary & absurd that we should have to write or do anything about it at all. Of course we can only say that the furniture was my mother’s & must be dealt with as such—but I cannot write the note without a consultation so unless you think it can wait for my return (as I shall be at home now in little more than a week), perhaps darling you will write to Rouen what you think should be said & in what manner, both about that & the plate. A letter will be in time if it leaves London on the 22nd—It is most unlucky that there should have been such atrocious weather in England. In this journey I have hardly lost an hour by weather though there has been a good deal of rain—but four days ago the weather set in intensely hot & bright, & one day even reminded Edition: current; Page: [232] me of those days at Tours. I have therefore not been able to walk quite so much as before, especially such long walks, though I have walked a good deal & am not at all weakened by it. My strength is most satisfactory but this is not weather to gain flesh in. A good deal of the feverishness has come back but I could not expect less in such hot weather. Thanks darling for what she says about Mr Pope, but I do not think he is at all of a calibre to be a permanent acquaintance. I thought more of him at first than I do now from finding his opinions or sentiments so good on the great subjects & such an apparent willingness to receive, & from finding that he was a little up in French history, had read some poets &c I fancied him well informed, but I am now chiefly pleased with the proof he seems to afford that right opinions are very widely scattered through England, when they have reached so very little educated & so little clever or rather so dull a man as he seems to me to be. I will give him a general invitation to call at the I.H. & I can hardly do less after passing so many days in travelling with him—& if he comes we can aviser about anything further. Since I wrote from Rochefort I have seen Niort, an ugly & Fontenay a pretty place—also a fine cathedral at Luçon—Les Sables is on a splendid bay, reminding one of Sandown, but with a still finer beach & a magnificent swell of the sea in waves parallel to the shore, breaking into surf half a mile’s length at a time. There is nothing else good there; the town is the meanest French town I ever saw, hardly a house with more than one story to it, & the streets or rather lanes the worst paved I shd think in France. The town forms a narrow ridge between the bay & a large harbour, much too large for the place as the entrance is getting itself filled up by sand & ships cannot enter. There are plenty of bathing machines, but the hot baths! oh! The principal establishment has just four, in little closets on the beach. Adieu my own most precious. I go tomorrow by railway to Angers.

Owing to a change in my route, I did not get to Nantes till later than I originally intended. With regard to my mother’s furniture,2 I always considered it hers, & have often told her so. I think it or its proceeds should be Edition: current; Page: [233] distributed equally among all her daughters. The plate which my mother had, also to be distributed equally in the same manner. I am

I have just arrived here my own darling & have received the three letters you addressed here containing the entire history of that horrible abscess. As it has turned out I am perhaps fortunate in having received them all together, as I should have been very anxious, which now I hope there is no cause to be, but on the contrary a permanent evil got rid of (I did not perceive the bull). It confirms your old impressions, for you have often thought there had been inflammation & an abscess is I believe proof positive of chronic inflammation which also it carries off. How very fortunate you saw Tuson when you did. I have not written since Nantes & have come here in less time than I intended, owing to the tropical heat, as the Paris papers very truly call it, which makes it almost impossible & not altogether desirable to walk much. I meant to have had country walks; & long ones, at all the places. At most I have only been able to walk about the towns. The first day I halted at Areines for a few hours & had a 3½ hours walk in the hot sun (with my umbrella up however) & did not feel tired, or the worse for it—but I could not have done so any other day. At Saumur I walked in the evening to the druidical remains which are much finer than any I saw in Brittany, but none (except Gavr Innis on the island) are really fine like Stonehenge because, like all things in France, they are the reverse of solitary. I had generally to set out too early in the mornings to have an early walk, & in the evenings even after dark it is most sultry. This morning however at Vernon where I went on purpose, I was out at half past five till about half past seven & afterwards passed some of the hot hours in the shady woods of Louis Philippe’s2 chateau—an evidently nice house, with grounds & woods which we could make pretty. Notwithstanding the scorching heat & intense sun, I like the Seine as much as ever but the Loire is a thorough humbug—though a fine river, for the Seine after it looks like a ditch—but it turns out that the part from Blois to Tours which I always supposed the dull introduction to something very beautiful beyond, is the only pretty part there is, or at least much Edition: current; Page: [234] the best. From Angers almost to Saumur is an absolute plain. There seems some prettyish country behind Saumur towards the south, but not visible from the river. The finest things I have seen are the cathedrals. Angers is more curious than fine, Evreux fine, Le Mans magnificent, but Chartres deserves all & more than all that has ever been said of it—I only know Amiens & St Ouen that can be compared with it, & till I have seen them again I do not know if even they are equal to it. I shall see St Ouen this evening or tomorrow & the other nice old places & shall have plenty of time to do the little commissions she gave me the pleasure of. I shall get weighed again tomorrow but shall not be surprised if I find I have lost flesh in this very hot weather. I have not lost strength, which is very satisfactory. However seeing the heat which as is natural grows every day greater, I see no use in continuing the journey & shall therefore return home at once. I almost fear you may not get this before my return. I shall go to Dieppe tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday) & the steamer I find leaves at two on Wednesday morning & also at 8.45 on Wednesday evening. At present I think I shall go by the former, in which case I shall have the happiness of being with her some time on Wednesday—if not, early on Thursday. I have been absent six weeks last Saturday, exceeding the longest term we thought of, but it has done enough good to be well worth it. I shall write the letter to Colman3 exactly according to your pencil which seems to me perfectly right—about the plate, there is nothing at all curious or which was presented to my father, & to us it would only be worth its value as old silver—I will therefore as you suggest tell him to deal with it as with the furniture. About Mr Pope, he & I exchanged cards when we separated the first time, & my card had no address on it—I meant to have written India House but forgot. When I left him at Nantes I said I should be glad to see him when he comes to England & that he would find me or hear of me at the I.H. but he asked me to write to tell him how I am when I get to England & I said I would—I meant to write last thing from Dieppe in order that the writing might be like a continuance of only travelling acquaintanceship, but I shall now, I think, not write till I see my precious love & have discussed that & many other things. On the Loire the inns continue cheap though not so cheap as in Britany but the moment one is in Normandy dearness begins. At Saumur the best meat was said to be 11 sous. I got a dish of fine currants for a sou. The best inn at Nantes, an excellent one, is very moderate for a large town. Thanks darling for the Spec. With all possible love.

[P.S.] If she only wrote three to Nantes I got them all—but instead of June 26, July 6 & 12 I got June 29, July 4 & 12.

On returning from the Continent I have just received your letter and its numerous inclosures. I will consider of what you propose,2 and will give you an answer the first moment I can find leisure from the many things I have to attend to on returning from an absence.

Having just returned from the Continent I find your note. I very much wish that it were in my power to refer you or anyone to a book or set of books fitted to form a course of instruction in moral philosophy. None such to my knowledge, exist. In my opinion ethics as a branch of philosophy is still to be created. There are writers on the subject from whom valuable thoughts may be gathered, & others (particularly Bentham)2 who have thrown some though not sufficient light on the mode of systematizing it. But on the whole every one’s ideas of morals must result from the action of his own intellect, upon the materials supplied by life, & by the writers in all languages who have understood life best. The part of psychology which corresponds to morals is one of the most imperfect parts of that most Edition: current; Page: [236] imperfect science. Its most important portion, the laws of the formation of character, have never yet been treated otherwise than superficially. Some idea of the little which has been done may be gathered from parts of Hartley on Man3 & from my father’s article “Education”4 in the Suppl to the Enc. Britannica; but I do not recommend even these for any other purpose than that of furnishing suggestions & stimulus to your own thoughts.

I have the honour of receiving your letter dated the 20th of July. As the specimen of your translation of my Logic,2 which you mentioned your intention of sending, did not accompany the letter, I have waited some days for it; but as it has not yet arrived, I will no longer delay expressing to you the pleasure it gives me to learn that a translation of my book has been undertaken by one who has entered so thoroughly into its spirit, as your letter shews you to have done. I am not acquainted with the translation which has been made of the Inductive portion of the book.3 I am glad to hear from you that it has been so successful; but you have very rightly judged that, to give to the cultivators of physical science the theory of their own operations, was but a small part of the object of the book and that any success in that attempt Edition: current; Page: [239] was chiefly valued by me as a necessary means towards placing metaphysical & moral science on a basis of analysed experience, in opposition to the theory of innate principles, so unfortunately patronized by the philosophers of your country, & which through their influence has become the prevailing philosophy throughout Europe. I consider that school of philosophy as the greatest speculative hindrance to the regeneration so urgently required, of man and society; which can never be effected under the influence of a philosophy which makes opinions their own proof, and feelings their own justification. It is, besides, painful to see such a mass of cultivated intellect, and so great an educational apparatus, as exist in your country, wasted in manufacturing a false appearance of science out of purely subjective impressions. To be thought capable of maintaining a contest against that school even in Germany, is one of the highest compliments my book could receive. Of the opportuneness of a translation, & its chances of success, you must be a much better judge than I can be. Your letter is a proof of your competency for translating the book & I shall be happy to give whatever assistance my opinion can afford you on any of the minor matters on which you express a desire to communicate with me.

Your letter of Jany 9th has reached me within these few days. I am glad to hear of the various literary enterprises you have in hand or in contemplation, as I feel assured from the character of your work on Pol. Ec. that your speculations on any subject to which you have applied yourself will contain (whether I agree with them or not) enough both of knowledge & of originality & ingenuity to more than justify bringing them before the world. I have made more use of your treatise2 than you appear to have been informed of, having quoted largely from it, especially from your discussion of the circumstances which influence the “effective desire of accumulation”, a point which you appear to me to have treated better than it had ever been treated before. I have already published my opinion that nothing was wanting Edition: current; Page: [241] to your book except favorable chances to have gained you the reputation you desire, & which I hope you may acquire by other writings.

You could not however have addressed yourself to any person less capable than myself of giving any useful assistance in bringing out your speculations on the Hawaiian language. My own pursuits do not lie in the direction of comparative philology nor have I any acquaintances in this class of érudits (chiefly to be found in Germany) from some one of whom you desire a recommendation & his name as editor. Nor do I think this would easily be obtained for the preliminary pamphlet which you contemplate, whatever might be the case with the completed work.3 Even to get the pamphlet printed is more than I am able to undertake, not only from pressing occupations, but because the state of my health renders my residence in England, at the time when your MS could reach me, extremely unlikely.

Dr. Arnott4 whom you mention as an old acquaintance is alive & flourishing & may possibly have it more in his power to promote your object than myself.

You ask me how your book became known to me. I first heard of it from Mr. Senior5 who recommended it to me as a book of which he had a high opinion, & after I had read it through his means I picked up a copy on a stall.

I beg to acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your pamphlet “On Some Fallacies of Political Economy”.2

I quite agree with you that many fallacies are engendered by the vague & ambiguous use of the word Capital even among political economists. I do not think however that anyone entitled to the name of a political economist ever confounds capital with money, or with the right to receive money; however Edition: current; Page: [242] often that gross blunder may be committed by the writers of “city articles in the Times”, writers ignorant of the very elements of the subject. The phrases which you cite as examples appear to me to arise from a confusion of another sort, viz. the employment of both these words, money & capital, to express loanable capital, or capital seeking investment, a misuse of terms extremely frequent, & leading to the notion that the causes which influence the loan market & the rate of interest have something to do with the quantity of the currency, than which in my opinion no notion can be more erroneous.

My own definition of capital is the portion of wealth which is destined to be employed for the purpose of production; & my difference with you on this point is well summed up in one sentence of your pamphlet (p. 43), where you say it is absurd that what is not capital should merely by the altered intentions of its owner, become capital, without any change in itself. I hold on the contrary that whether any given portion of wealth is capital or not, is solely a question of the intentions of its owners: just as it is wholly a question of the intentions of the owner whether a given bushel of wheat is seed or food.

I perceive that you are not aware that I have treated the subjects of your pamphlet at much length in my Princ of P.E.3 to which therefore I can refer you for a fuller exposition of my opinions.

Having received no answer to the note I wrote to you at Dartford a fortnight ago I suppose it did not reach you. I therefore write this to the Club to remind you that the longest time you proposed for repaying the £30 you borrowed of me has now for some time expired—

In answer to your last note I beg to say that I am well aware that the few words I wrote to you do not contain all that is necessary to explain & vindicate the view I take of some of the most vexed questions in P. Economy. I have endeavoured to do so to the best of my ability in a book which is in print, & I hope to be excused for saying that I have not time to do it over again for a correspondent. I will therefore only say in answer to your last point,2 that if it is the actual use & not the destination which decides how each portion of wealth is to be classed, then there is no food until somebody eats it & no seed until it is sown.

It was because I thought I perceived from your manner of referring to my book, that you had only referred to it & not read it that I mentioned it to you as containing my opinion on all the points on which you consulted me. I did read both your pamphlet & your letters with attention, & I assure you that they do not contain any difficulty which I had not previously considered & as I believe resolved.

I have much pleasure in giving this introduction to Mr Alexander Bain. I have long known him, and have mentioned in my Logic the obligations I was under to him in that work for remarks and illustrations.

The work which he proposes to you to publish2 is the result of many years of thought and study, and I am strongly persuaded that it will be an important advance on any previous work on the same subject. I may add that Mr Bain Edition: current; Page: [245] has had great practice as a popular writer, and has shewn much capacity of making abstract subjects interesting by his manner of treating them.

Not having received any answer to the two notes2 I wrote to you respecting the £30 I lent you I can only suppose that you have not received them. I now write to say that I am going abroad for the winter on the 25th of this month3 & if I do not see you before that time I shall be obliged to leave your note of hand with my solicitor Mr Wm Ley &c &c L[incoln’s] I[nn] Fields who will apply to you for the amount.

I have been prevented by great press of business from calling on you this week as I intended to ask you to be kind enough to undertake a small matter of business—an old acquaintance of mine named Revans borrowed £30 from me last May promising to repay it in July—This he has not done & 2 notes on the subject2 having remained unanswered I last week wrote to him,3 saying that I shd place his note of hand in your hands to obtain the money. I enclose his reply & request you will be good enough to take the needful Edition: current; Page: [246] steps to get it paid & if you succeed paying the amount into my act at Messrs Prescotts 62 Threadneedle Street.

We are leaving town for Torquay for the benefit of its milder climate for my wife who is in very delicate health after which I am going to the S. of Europe for the winter. My wife desires her kind remembrances.

I have been unable to answer earlier your note of the 10th of last month, having only found time to read the book3 you were so kind as to send me during a few days passed at this place before going abroad for the winter.4

Mr Ferrier has the rare merit in a conversationalist, of complete fairness. He understands the opinions of all the opponents whom he notices, as fully & states them as clearly & forcibly as his own. He has a very telling mode of discussion. His fabric of speculation is so effectively constructed, & imposing, that it almost ranks as a work of art. It is the romance of logic.

I should be very happy if I could add that I believed it had done, what the author is firmly persuaded it has—solved the problem which all philosophers from the first origin of speculation have been vainly hammering at. On the contrary, it is depressing to me to see a man of so much capacity under what appears to me so deep a delusion. Truly the main hindrance of philosophy is not its intrinsic difficulties, great as they are, but the extreme rarity of men who can reason. It is enough to make one despair of speculation when a man of so much talent & knowledge as this book displays & who piques himself peculiarly on his reasoning faculty commits nearly every fallacy set down in books of logic & this at all the most critical points of his argument. He says that whoever admits his first proposition must admit all Edition: current; Page: [247] the rest. I do not admit his first propn:5 but even if I did, his first great paralogism as it seems to me consists in thinking that his second proposition6 follows7 from his first, & there is a similar or a still greater logical blunder each time that he makes any really fresh advance in his argument. The whole system is one great specimen of reasoning in a circle. Unless each successive conclusion is presupposed it is impossible to admit the premisses in the sense in which alone they can support it. All this I am satisfied I could prove to you, book in hand, in an hour’s conversation. Before I had finished the book I understood his mode of proceeding so well that I could generally see before-hand in what manner he was goi